#1 







rl 






j.i "If r 



IE NT 



OLOGY 



^^^^ 14.^ 



»*f<** "-:»<'>**' '^ "vwr *"^<tt -► -» -if * -y— jf/<^ xv>^ ■r ■ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 



Chap. Copyright I^o. 

Shelf._...„_^.jE^g 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY 



BY 

MILTON G.' EVANS. 



PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY 



CROZER 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 



PART I. 
PRINTED FOR CLASSROOM USE. 



CUKSTER, PA. 
JOHN SPE^TCER, PKI^sTER AND BOOKBINBER. 

1900. 



1 



,E2 



23808 



Library of Corioreft:- 

jUL 23 1900, 

zOiWU COPY. 
i OffflU DIVISION, 

:aug 1 t9oo_^_ 



COPYRIGHTED 1900 BV MILTON G. EVANS. 



86878 



INTRODUCTION. 

Religious life always finds expression in sects, 
which differ widely from each other; and many of them 
often fail to reflect the thought and feeling of the peo- 
ple. Inevitably, then, Jewish schools had varying doc- 
trines, and in many particulars did not represent popu- 
lar conceptions; but it may be safely assumed that the 
school that was most in harmony with the Old Testa- 
ment and most consistent in carrying out its own pre- 
cepts had the widest influence, and thus both moulded 
and reflected public opinion. 

For the student of pre-christian Judaism the dom- 
inating religious conceptions are of value, and not the 
vagaries of sects, only so far as these aid the discovery 
of prevailing beliefs. Therefore, the Law and the 
Prophets, the theoretical rule of faith and practice of 
the Jewish people, must be the chief source of informa- 
tion. But the Old Testament was little more than the 
starting point of Jewish Theology of New Testament 
times, for the teaching of Moses and of the Prophets 
had been modified by four hundred years of most event- 
ful history. 

In addition to the Old Testament, then, the books 
of the inter-biblical period, the New Testament, the 
works of Josephus, and Talmudic literature, in so far as 



it can be shown to be ancient, must be consulted, in or- 
der to discover doctrines held by the Jews at the begin- 
ning of the christian era. 

In studying his sources the student must guard 
against the temptation to infer that the doctrines he 
finds were universally, or even generally accepted. He 
must satisfy himself as to the probable extent the book 
he is investigating circulated among the Jews, for there 
is always the possibility that the literature studied may 
be the expression of individual opinion only, or at most, 
of the school of thought to which its author belonged. 

With the limitations imposed by the comparative 
scarcity of material and by our ignorance of the per- 
sonality of authors and their relation to their contem- 
poraries, it is impossible to construct an exact or ex- 
haustive system of theology. He who knows the diffi- 
culties will refuse to be dogmatic. But yet the student 
must use the materials he does possess, and interpret 
them to the best of his ability. Lack of omniscience 
can be no excuse for refusal to try to understand the 
past. 



PRE=CHRISTIAN JEWISH THEOLOQV 



PRE-CHRISTIAX JEWISH THEOLOGY. 

It is needless to state Jewish beliefs in detail, for 
the relation of Jesus' teaching to rabbinic theology can 
be sufificiently illustrated in three fundamental particu- 
lars, namely. Doctrine of God, Doctrine of the Future, 
and the Religious Life. 

I. Doctrine of God. The drastic punishment 
of the Exile had taught the Jews so thoroughly the 
unity and immateriality and holiness of Jehovah, that 
the moral attributes of mercy and compassion and re- 
deeming love were little regarded, except when they 
were manifested specially towards the chosen people. 
The attributes most emphasized in Judaic theology 
were unity and holiness, unity as opposed to polytheism 
of the gentiles, and holiness as opposed to contact with 
defilement. The primitive idea of holiness as separa- 
tion obscured the prophetic idea of holiness as moral 
purity, and thus God was lifted in thought far above the 
world. He was so holy that it was sin to speak his 
name; he was so far removed from men, that the void 
between him and earth was conceived to be filled with 
angels and demons, agents of Jehovah to do good or 
evil. 

This doctrine of holiness became baleful in its 
practical effects. The priestly statutes requiring puri- 



8 

fication were religious, and not hygienic, and were in- 
tended to educate the people in moral cleanliness. That 
is, the symbol existed not for itself, but for the truth 
symbolized; but it is easy to confound the enactment 
with the principle embodied in enactments, to identify 
the rite with the truth declared in the rite. The Jews 
made this blunder, and confused the sinful with the le- 
vitically unclean. Since ceremonial purity was required 
before access to God was possible, they emphasized the 
external act rather than the disposition of mind which 
the external act figured ; and as God's holiness put him 
far away from sin, it was fancied that it put him far 
away from the ceremonially unclean. Hence, the ut- 
most care was taken to prevent defilement, and each 
hour was filled with dread lest defilement come by dis- 
ease or by contact with unclean persons and things. 

While emphasis on God's holiness tended to put 
him beyond the reach of man, yet the remembrance of 
Old Testament predictions concerning Israel's glory 
and Jehovah's ultimate purpose to punish wicked Is- 
raelites and to destroy the godless heathen, and also the 
true religious feeling of dependence and need of divine 
favor saved the nation from philosophical deism and 
practical infidelity. Man's religious interests de- 
mand that God possess other attributes than those that 
separate him from the sinful; and devout Jews did not 
fail to note the Old Testament passages that speak of 
grace as the basis of the covenant and the prophetic as- 
surances that Jehovah is ever ready to forgive national 
and individual sins. Pious Jews believed that God 



specially guided his covenant people (L. 1:51, 68-79; 
2:32); that he exercises general providence over the af- 
fairs of men, so as to exalt or debase (L. i :5i-53); and 
that he is kind to those in distress (L. i :58), especially 
to those who fear him (L. i : 50). 

2. Doctrine of the Future. The Old Testa- 
ment gives a variety of conceptions concerning the fu- 
ture of Israel and concerning the mediator of expected 
blessings. At first, national hopes were centred in a 
prophet, then in a king, then in a royal priest, then in a 
suffering servant, then in one like unto a son of man, 
and finally in Jehovah himself who "shall come sud- 
denly to his temple." Inevitably the question arose, 
What will be the character of the future that has all 
these elements? What will be the nature of the De- 
liverer who will combine in himself all these character- 
istics? 

The Jewish endeavor to answer these queries led 
to speculation concerning the nature and duration of 
the kingdom, and the time and manner and means of its 
.establishment; and the results of speculation were as 
varied as the colors of a kaleidoscope. But it came to 
pass, that that combination was most cherished, which 
reflected the popular wish for the re-establishment of 
the most glorious period of Israel's history, just as a 
child holds the kaleidoscope longest in the position that 
is most pleasing to the eye. Hence, the prevalent hope 
was for a dynasty of David that should reign forever. 
But along side of this expectation was the belief, not so 
widely held, that a prophet would appear. Some iden- 



10 

tified the Prophet with the Messiah (Acts 3:22); the 
great majority thought that the Trophet' and the 
'Messiah' were titles of different persons, and appUed 
the former title to the Forerunner, and reserved the lat- 
ter for him who should be kingly mediator of divine 
judgment and salvation. That two persons were ex- 
pected is put beyond doubt by the disciples' question, 
"Why say the scribes that Elijah must first come?" 
Jesus answered. The scribes are right; Elijah indeed 
comes first, and restores all things (Mk. 9: 11, 12). 

This restoration was deemed necessary, because of 
the disorders which were expected to precede the com- 
ing of the Messiah. The thought that happiness must 
follow pain as of a woman in travail is expressed by 
Hosea; and probably Hosea suggested to the rabbis the 
notion of the travail of the Messiah. The writers of the 
Sibyline Oracles (3:795-807), Second Maccabees (5: 
2,3), Fourth Ezra (5:1-13; 6:18-23; 9:1-12; 13:29- 
31), Book of Jubilees, and Apocalypse of Baruch (70: 
2-8) seem to vie with each other in depicting the agon- 
izing terrors preceding the brighter day. Nature will 
cease to act normally, for sun and moon will exchange 
places in times of shining, troops of men and horses will 
march in the clouds, and famine, war and earthquake 
will devastate the earth. There will be suspension of 
moral law also, for there will be hate in the family, an- 
archy in the state and decay in religion. 

While it was believed that such confusion must 
give birth to the Messiah, 3^et it seemed impossible for 
him to come until order had been restored. Hence, 



11 

arose the belief in the coming of Elijah to "turn the 
heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the 
children to their fathers." 

But the advent of the Messiah was not the central 
idea in Israel's hope. He was valued only as Jehovah's 
agent to usher in the "good time coming;" for God 
himself must be king of Israel. The writer of the Psal- 
ter of Solomon boasts: "Lord, thou alone art our king 
forever and ever. * * * We hope in God our Savior, 
because the power of our God is with mercy forever 
(17: I, 3)." So that the phrase "kingdom of God" sums 
up all the expectations of Israel. The phrase is found 
in the Sibylline Oracles, Psalter of Solomon, Tobit, 
Song of the Three Children, Wisdom of Solomon, and 
Assumption of Moses, and it means such a rule of God 
over Israel as will bring the gentiles into subjection to 
his authority. It is so understood in the Psalter of Sol- 
omon: "And the kingdom of our God is over the heath- 
en in judgment forever" (17: 4); and the Book of Enoch 
represents Jehovah as coming in person to judge the 
Jews -and the nations (cap. 90). The Assumption of 
Moses does not mention the Messiah, but graphically 
portrays Jehovah coming in wrath to punish the na- 
tions and to exalt Israel. The prevailing belief, how- 
ever, was, that the Messiah would be the one to execute 
vengeance on the wicked, and thus be God's instrument 
in establishing the kingdom. The Psalter of Solomon 
regards the reign of God and the reign of a Davidic 
king equivalent ideas (17: 1-51). According to the 
general view, then, the judgment of Jehovah and the 



12 

advent of the Messiah are synchronous events, i. e. the 
judgment inaugurates the messianic reign. 

The character and nature of God's rule were var- 
iously conceived. This was natural, since the Old Tes- 
tament furnished the imagery. As in the canonical 
books holiness, justice and purity are associated with 
political and social prosperity, so in extra-canonical lit- 
erature union of the same ideas is found. Sometimes a 
writer imagines the future in forms grossly sensusous; 
but we must not interpret too literally, for Jewish writ- 
ers had poetic insight, and were able to embody trans- 
cendental ideas in figures taken from nature and from 
human society. For example, the early Sibylline Ora- 
cles, which are of ten coarsely pictorial, contain this fine 
description: 

''Be of good cheer, O maiden, and exult, 
For the Eternal, who made heaven and earth, 
Has given thee joy, and he will dwell in thee, 
And for thee shall be an immortal light. 
And lambs and wolves promiscuously shafl eat 
Grass in the mountains, and among the kids 
Shall leopards graze, and wandering bears shall lodge 
Among the calves, and the carniverous lion 
Shall eat straw in the manger like the ox. 
And little children lead them with a band. 
For tame will be on earth the beasts be made. 
And with young babes will dragons fall asleep. 
And no harm, for God's hand will be on them." 

The Psalms of Solomon reflect the aspirations of a 
soul of intense moral earnestness and deep spiritual 



13 

longings, and represent the heathen as drawn by the 
righteous condition of Jehovah's people to acknowl- 
edge his sway; but they also show that the writer was 
trammelled by carnal desires. This is not very strange, 
however, for the devout Zachariah also combines spirit- 
ual and political salvation (Luke i : 67-79). 

Naturally, it was conceived that Jerusalem, the city 
of the great king, would be the capital of God's king- 
dom; but, because of abominations carried on within 
the city by gentile oppressors and apostate Jews, there 
must be a new Jerusalem. Some supposed that the city 
would be new in character, others that it would be new 
in kind. The writer of the Psalter of Solomon held the 
former view; he prays: ''Cleanse Jerusalem from the 
heathen, who tread it under foot, in wisdom, in right- 
eousness. The more general. notion was that the old 
city would be removed and a new one substituted (Book 
of Enoch 53:6; 90:28,29; Fourth Esdras 10:44-59; 
Apocalypse of Baruch 4: 2-6; 32: 4). That this was the 
common rabbinic fancy may be inferred from the facts, 
that Paul contrasts the Jerusalem that now is with the 
Jerusalem that is above, that John sees ''the new Jeru- 
salem that comes down out of heaven," and that the 
writer to the Hebrews speaks of "the city of the living 
God, the heavenly Jerusalem." 

There were various theories of the duration of the 
Messiah's reign. The early view was that it would last 
forever. No other idea can be naturally suggested by 
Old Testament passages promising everlasting dur- 
ation to the house of David. This was the opinion of 



14 

the author of Daniel (7: 14), the Psalter of Solomon 
(17: 4), the Book of Enoch (62: 14) and of the Jews of 
Jesus' day (John 12: 34). 

A limited duration of the kingdom is a later view, 
and is first clearly stated in the Apocalypse of Baruch 
and in Fourth Esdras. The former makes it last ''until 
the world of corruption is finished;" the latter says, 
"... .he will make them joyful until the coming of the 
end, the day of judgment." In these passages no time 
is stated, but in another passage Fourth Esdras allows 
the Messiah a four hundred years' reign (7: 28, 29). In 
the Talmud there are various conjectures ranging 
from two thousand to forty years. The point to be 
noted is, that there were two main views, namely, an 
endless reign and a reign limited in time. Those who 
held the latter view expected greater blessedness in the 
period subsequent to the messianic rule than it itself 
furnished. Along side of this doctrine lay naturally the 
belief that the world would not be renewed at the in- 
auguration of the messianic kingdom, but at its close; 
and since the notion was held that the last judgment ac- 
companied the renewed heaven and renewed earth, it 
was believed that the general judgment would close the 
reign of the Messiah. But this idea is not found in pre- 
christian literature. 

In the Book of Enoch the renovated earth and the 
judgment are contemporaneous events ushering in the 
dominion of the Son of Man (45: 4, 5; 91: 16); but in 
Fourth Esdras the passing away of the old world con- 
cludes the rule of the Messiah (7: 30, 31). 



15 

The hope of a post-messianic blessedness more 
bhssfiil than the Messiah's rule gave rise to two techni- 
cal expressions, 'this age' and 'the coming or future 
age.' It was in dispute, whether 'this age' or 'the fu- 
ture age' would witness the rule of God. Fourth Esdras 
calls 'this age' the age of the Messiah, and imagines 
that the last judgment will inaugurate the 'future age,' 
while the older view was that the messianic period 
would be subsequent to 'this age.' 

A doctrine of the resurrection was closely con- 
nected with the doctrine of messianic rule. Those who 
believed that the kingdom belonged to this earth 
thought the righteous only would arise to participate in 
messianic joys (Psalter of Solomon 3: i6; 14:2; Jo- 
sephus, Ant. 18: 1-3). When the resurrection was con- 
nected in thought with the judgment, either at the be- 
ginning or at the close of the ^Messiah's rule, it was con- 
ceived to be general, rather than national, and therefore 
personal. In this case there were two opinions, that of 
Daniel and the Boock of Enoch, which put a general 
resurrection prior to the judgment that inaugurates the 
rule of God, and that of Fourth Esdras and Apocalypse 
of Baruch, which place it in connection with the judg- 
ment that terminates the messianic rule and introduces 
the post-messianic blessedness. 

Granting that the dead will rise, speculation begins 
concerning the state of the dead. A separation between 
the righteous and the unrighteous in Sheol was not an 
article of old Hebrew faith, but it was firmly held in the 
latter part of the inter-biblical period. Since the litera- 



IB 

ture of this period marks the transition from the faith of 
a Hebrew to the faith of a christian, it need not surprise 
us to find evidence of the gloomy prospect of the Old 
Testament and of the hope of the New. Thus, the au- 
thor of Ecclesiasticus thought that Hades, the abode of 
the dead, was the common lot of the living, and was to 
be feared in consequence (17: 27, 28; 41 : 4); but in the 
Book of Enoch we find a decided advance, for the dead 
are consciously existing, and are separated according 
to degrees of guilt and punishment (91: 10; 92: 3; 22: 
1-14). 

Our Lord's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus 
presupposes that the Jews believed that Hades was sub- 
divided into two compartments, one for the tormented 
and one for the happy, and that this state was one of 
consciousness. Of course Gehenna did not bring the 
severest penalty, nor Paradise the highest joy, for the 
judgment of God was yet future. This judgment de- 
cides finally the fate of each dweller in Hades. 

3. Religious Life. Since doctrine and life are 
indissolubly connected, the Shema, the Jewish confes- 
sion of faith, not only gives the fundamental beliefs of 
the people, but also reflects their religious life. That 
this confession must have taken deep root in popular 
thought may be inferred from the fact that it was re- 
cited twice each day by every adult male Israelite. It 
consists of the passages, Deut. 6:4-19; 11: 13: 13-21; 
Numb. 15:37-41. The creed may be briefly para- 
phrased as follows: i. The God of Israel is one, who 
redeemed the nation from bondage, and who therefore 



17 

requires its undivided love and demands constant medi- 
tation upon his commandments; 2. Love for the one 
God, obedience to him and faithfuhiess in teaching his 
precepts condition national prosperity; 3. The com- 
mandments of Jehovah, the redeeming God, must be 
held in memory by aid of certain mementos. 

It is easily understood how this creed brought it 
about that the Law became the spring of all religious 
activity. In conduct little depended on the motive, but 
much on the legality of an act. In pharisaic Judaism 
there was no room for the free play of personality in 
morals and worship. 

Externality in worship is a vice inherent in human 
nature, illustrated in pre-exilic Hebraism in the act of 
sacrifice, the most significant act of worship demanded 
by the Old Testament, and in post-exilic Judaism by 
making the Law the touchstone by which men knew 
they were honoring God. As soon as the relation be- 
tween God and Israel was conceived to be a legal rela- 
tion, that is, a relation determined by law, there arose 
the danger of obeying the letter rather than the spirit. 
The danger became an actuality, for in practice every 
act was done according to an express statute. To know 
how devoid of piety was legal Judaism we need but re- 
call the fact that the scribes have given us no exposi- 
tion of the Ten Commandments. They bent their ener- 
gies to decide what medicines might be legally taken on 
Sabbath days, what constituted a Sabbath day's jour- 
ney, how heavy burdens might be carried on holy days, 
and other such trifling matters. Their prayers were 



IB 

not the outbursts of a heart craving communion with 
God, but were fixed, formulas, and these were said at 
stated times and in well defined ways. There can be no 
vital piety when laws regulate the matter, the manner 
and the times of prayer. 

But it is shallow to suppose that the Old Testament 
revelation occasioned Pharisaism only. On the con- 
trary, such character as was revealed in Zechariah, 
Simeon, Joseph, Nathaniel, Elizabeth, Anna and Mary 
was the direct fruit of the Law and the Prophets. In 
Pharisaism itself we find Nicodemus, an earnest in- 
quirer after truth ; Gamaliel, a tolerant interpreter of 
human actions; Saul of Tarsus hungering and thirsting 
after righteousness. The Gospels tell of one young 
man of wealth and social position, who won the love of 
Jesus because of his exemplary moral worth, and be- 
cause of his earnest quest after eternal life (Mk. lo: 17- 
22); and they disclose another who had read the pro- 
phets to such good purpose, that he anticipated Christ 
in ranking love to God and man superior to the cur- 
rent pharisaic notion of righteousness by works (Luke 
10: 25-28). 

This rapid survey of Jewish theology shows, that 
while Jesus had much to antagonize him, enough in- 
deed to compass his death, he also had much to en- 
courage, for there were devout ones waiting for the 
consolation of Israel, and burdened ones ready to re- 
spond to one who had the grace and the power to say, 
''Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and 
I will give you rest." 



TEACHINQ OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 



TEACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. 

ACCORDING TO THK SYNOPTISTS. 

John had no difficuUy in getting the attention of 
his contemporaries. His dress was the credential of his 
prophetic office; his manner of hfe in the deserts, hi.- 
sudden appearance, his fiery vehement speech remind- 
ed Israel of its great reformer Elijah; and the message, 
"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand," at 
once found response in the hearts of all "that were look- 
ing for the redemption of Jerusalem." The message 
was a greater motive power for conduct than the mes- 
senger, for it contained the good news of a state of so- 
ciety in which there will be no ills arising from irrelig- 
ion, immortality, or natural phenomena. In Jewish 
thought this social condition did not mean equality of 
states or of persons, for Israel must be supreme among 
nations, and its civil and religious rulers must neces- 
sarily occupy prominent positions. . In the kingdom for 
which they looked, political good and moral good were 
conjoined, but not in the same manner in the minds of 
all. Some thought more on political emancipation and 
regarded it as an end in itself, while others dwelt largely 
on the moral purity that must result from civil freedom. 
"Salvation from our enemies, and from the hand of all 
that hate us" may be taken as the rallying cry of the 
former; "rescued from the hands of our enemies, to 

21 



22 

serve him without fear, in hoHness and righteousness 
before him all our days," the watchword of the latter. 

No doubt, the more devout expected salvation in 
the remission of their sins, but the majority empha- 
sized the political aspect of the expected deliverance. 

Though the term 'the kingdom' had varying mean- 
ing, the thought of it brought gladness to all, for each 
interpreted it to be the realization of his own hope. 

John emphasized the truth taught by those rabbis 
who taught that repentance must precede the establish- 
ment of God's rule, and th-erefore tried to win the Jews 
to a new view of their obligation to God and to fellow- 
men. His proclamation aroused the nation, so that 
crowds thronged to his baptism. But many were drawn 
by the announcement of the kingdom's approach, rather 
than by the demand for moral amendment. Especially 
was this true of the ofBcials and religious teachers, who 
hoped to escape messianic condemnation because of 
lineal descent from Abraham. They saw no moral sig- 
nificance in John's baptism, and so virtually repudiated 
his doctrine of repentance. The prophet at once denied 
the national character of the kingdom of heaven, and 
taught its individualistic or moral character. Its mem- 
bers must have Abraham's faith, not Abraham's blood; 
they must be men whose sins have been pardoned and 
abandoned (Mk. 1:4). Escape from coming wrath de- 
pends not on lineal descent, but on conduct that issues 
from repentance (Matt. 3: 7-9; L. 3: 7, 8a). 

John did not preach a revolution, either social or 
political, but reformation. Each social class must aban- 



23 

don its prevailing sin. Those that possessed something 
must give to those that possessed nothing; the extor- 
tionate must abandon avaricious oppression; soldiers 
must cease intimidation and blackmail and be content 
with their wages (L. 3: 10-14). By concrete example 
the preacher enforces the general principle, that love 
for others will put an end to poverty, oppression, bru- 
tality, and all social disorders. 

Repentance must be speedy, for the doom is cer- 
tain and near. The axe is at the tree ready for imme- 
diate use (Matt. 3: 10; L. 3:9). 

But moral reformation indicated and pledged by 
baptism was not the whole of John's message. He ele- 
vated social righteousness to the religious sphere by 
proclaiming ''the coming One," who will establish and 
perpetuate the righteousness of the kingdom by be- 
stowment of the Holy Spirit. He will also purge his 
people by consuming the wicked with a baptism of fire 
(Matt. 3: II ; L. 3: 16). The Jewish nation, his thresh- 
ing floor, will be cleansed by thorough sifting. The un- 
repentant will be destroyed, and the repentant gathered 
into his kingdom (Matt. 3: 12; L. 3: 17). 

John preached little that was new. His view was 
that of the Old Testament prophets and of the thought- 
ful and religious of his own time. The absolutely 
new element in his proclamation was the authoritative 
announcement of the nearness of the kingdom. Prob- 
ably new also, was the union of the messianic idea with 
the punitive wrath of Jehovah. 



24 
ACCORDING TO JOHN'S GOSPEL. 

John the Baptist said, that he was not the Messiah, 
nor the Old Testament EUjah returned to earth, nor 
the nameless prophet expected by many (Jno. i : 19- 
21), but a voice calling men to prepare their hearts by 
repentance for the reign of God (i: 23). He was the 
bridegroom's friend, whose task and joy it was to woo 
the Jewish people for the bridegroom (3: 29). The very 
fact that John was baptizing showed that the Greater 
One was near (i : 2y, 31, 33). 

John declared that Jesus was the Messiah ap- 
pointed by God to bear away sin by sufifering (i: 29); 
that he was pre-existent (i : 15, 30); and that he had a 
unique relation to God expressed by the title 'Son of 
God' (i: 34). He announced that the Messiah's work 
will be to baptize with the Holy Spirit, and that he can 
do this effectively because endowed for that purpose 

(1:33)- 

Note that John said, that his knowledge of the per- 
son and work of the Messiah was given him by special 
revelation (i : 33). 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS. 

(SYXOPTISTS.) 



THE KINGDOM OF QOD. 



THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 

Like John the Baptist, Jesus heralded the ap- 
proach of the kingdom of God, and required repent- 
ance as the condition of entrance. He called his mes- 
sage good news, because it was the announcement that 
'the good time coming,' which had been predicted by 
the Prophets, was not only sure, but also near. The pre- 
the expression because it contained the substance of 
the world and of the nation, is closing; the messianic 
time is about to be established in the reign of God. 

What Jesus meant by the phrase 'kingdom of God' 
must be gathered from his words scattered throughout 
the gospel narratives, for he did not define it. He used 
the expression because it contained the substance of 
Jewish expectation. That he did not understand the 
term to mean a form of government, or a social state 
free from human ills, may be inferred from what he 
was. He certainly had as much spiritual insight as the 
prophets and his own contemporaries, Simeon and 
John. Again, if he was conscious of divine sonship, it 
is not arbitrary to suppose that he imported more into 
the common expression that the most devout of his 
countrymen, and that he depended on his abihty as 
teacher to enable his followers to empty it of its old 
contents, and fill it with the ideas held by himself. 

29 



30 

Whether these a priori assumptions, which are based on 
later knowledge of his person and work, are justified, 
must be determined by analysis of the analogy sug- 
gested by the term kingdom of God. 

Since the kingdom was the central theme of Jesus' 
teaching, he had something to say about the King, sub- 
jects, and laws, for these are necessary elements of the 
concept kingdom. 

THE KING. 

The King is God. Sometimes Jesus speaks of 
himself as king (Mt. i6: 28; L. 22: 30), but in no way 
does he question the absolute supremacy of God, for 
his own reign is appointed by his Father (L. 22: 29). 

Jesus assumes the Old Testament teaching about 
God. He is the only God, the creator (Mk. 10: 6; 13: 
19) and sovereign over all things in heaven and earth 
(Matt. 11: 25; L. 10: 21). He guided the destiny of Is- 
rael because of a special covenant (Mk. 12:26). He 
makes the sun to rise and sends rain (Matt. 5:45), 
clothes the fields with grass (Matt. 5:30; L. 12:28), 
provides food for birds (Matt. 5: 26; L. 12: 24), notes a 
sparrow's fall (Matt. 10: 29) and also the insignificant 
injuries that befall his children (Matt. 10: 29; L. 12: 7), 
and knows and provides for the bodily needs of men 
(Matt. 6: 30-32; L. 12: 28-30). Since he is able to do 
all this, Jesus took for granted that he is omniscient 
(Matt. 6:8, 32; 10: 29, 30; 24: 36; L. 16: 15), omnipres- 
ent (Matt. 6:4, 8, 18) and omnipotent (Matt. 19:26; 
Mk. 10: 2y; 14: 36; L. 12: 5; 18: 27). 



31 

God is benevolent to irrational creatures (Matt. 6: 
26-30) and to men irrespective of their moral condition 
(Matt. 5:45); he is merciful and gracious to the de- 
praved, for he is ready to forgive their sins (Matt. 18: 
12-14, 23-35; L. 15: — ), and he is patient in spite of 
their impenitence (L. 13:6-9). But his mercy to the 
sinful does not impair his justice, for he punishes the 
wicked (Matt. 18: 34, 35; 22\ 11-13; 23: 12; 25: 41-46; 
L. 12: 46; 13: 27; 14: 24) and rewards the good (Matt. 
5:11, 12; 6: 4, 6, 8; 25: 21, 29, 34). In short, the King 
is the sum of moral excellence, and the only standard 
of goodness (Matt. 19: 17; Mk. 10: 18; L. 18: 19). 

In the Old Testament, Jehovah was the Father of 
the nation, because of his electing love (Ex. 4: 22; Dt. 
1 : 31 ; 8: 5; Hos. 11 : i ; Isa, 63: 16; Jer. 31 : 9, 10), and 
in consequence the nation was expected to obey, honor 
and love him as its Father (Dt. 32: 6; Mai. i: 6). He 
was Father to the nation as a corporate unit, and not to 
the individual Israelite, except to Isreal's theocratic 
king (2 Sam. 7: 14; Ps. 89: 2'j'). Israel's king was son 
in an official sense, and not because he personally was 
dearer to Jehovah than any other member of the nation. 

The relation of Jehovah to Israel was a moral, not 
a natural relation. The word Father defines the nature 
of this ethical relationship. The goal of Israel's history 
will be reached when the nation can say to Jehovah, My 
Father (Jer. 3: 19). 

While in the Old Testament no individual Israel- 
ite addressed Jehovah as Father, yet the devout wor- 
shiper believed in his God's protecting love, and ex- 



3^ 

pressed his conviction by similes taken from home Hfe 
(Ps. 103: 13). The germs, then, of God's fatherhness as 
taught by Jesus are foimd in the Old Testament. Jesus 
simply emphasized the relation of God to the individual, 
and, in contrast with the rabbis, who exalted God by 
insisting on his transcendence, he brought him near by 
insisting on his fatherly love and care. Before Christ's 
day no Jew looked up to God, and said in reverent and 
affectionate prayer. My Father; but this is what Jesus 
taught men to do. 

Our Lord did not give the grounds of God's father- 
hness, but the texts in which the name father occurs 
show that it is because of his forgiving love. The per- 
fection of love makes God Father, and this perfection is 
seen in that he loves his enemies (Matt. 5: 48). He is 
therefore Father to all men irrespective of their moral 
condition (5: 45, 48). This is the whole of the Gospel, 
for it is just God's love for lost man that is meant by 
God's fatherhness. He is Father, because he loves, and 
not because of a relationship determined by what we 
conceive to be the necessary relation of father to son. 
The father loves the lost son and rejoices in his re- 
covery (L 15.: iif¥). 

While God is Father because he loves, men are not 
sons because they are recipients of his benefits, but 
must become sons by fulfillmg the law of love. 
Only those are sons who are peacemakers (Matt. 5: 9), 
and, like God, are lovers of enemies (Matt 5:44, 45). 
Obedience to the will of God makes men and women 
brothers and sisters of Jesus (Mk. 3: 35), and this im- 



33 

plies that such a relationship does not belong to men in 
general. ^len do not know God as Father, except as 
the Son reveals his fatherly character, and they become 
sons when they recognize his fatherliness (I\Iatt. ii: 
25-27). Disciples are sons as other men are not (^latt. 
10: 20; 13: 43; L. 12: 32). 

By interpreting God to men through the figure of 
fatherhood, Jesus intended to teach God's relation to 
men, not men's relation to God; he meant to say that 
God is to men what a father is to his children. A father 
brings into existence, he maintains existence by pro- 
viding for bodily wants, he guards from physical and 
moral evil, he is patient of the child's mistakes, he for- 
gives its rebellion; in short, a father loves. Imagine an 
ideal father, and you have the most adequate revelation 
of the Father who is in heaven. In this way, Jesus gave 
the most elemental and universal conception of God. 
comprehended easily by slave and master, subject and 
ruler, peasant and philosopher, poor and rich. The 
word god contains no very definite impression; it al- 
ways suggests the vague and mysterious and awful ; but 
the word father gives an idea intelligible to every per- 
son of whatever degree of intelligence. 

But human fatherhood has its limitations. The 
child soon discovers that his father is not the perfection 
of strength, wisdom, or goodness, and that he does not 
always forgive wisely or punish justly. So that father- 
liness may suggest a wrong interpretation of God. 
Jesus guarded against wrong inferences that might be 
drawn from his insistence on God's fatherliness by teach- 



u 

ing men to pray, 'Tather, hallowed be thy name" (L. 
11:2). To Jesus there was no incompatibility between 
the fatherliness of God and his holiness and sover- 
eignty. His conception was that of an oriental ; for in 
the East the father of a family is king of the family: 
king because father, and father because king. 

Since God is Father, men can go to him fearlessly, 
like children to their earthly parents; since he is Sover- 
eign, they are certain that he can provide for their 
wants ; and since he is holy, they are assured that he will 
answer in a way best suited to their needs (L. 1 1 : 1-13). 

THE VICEGERENT. 

Jesus was appointed by the Father to be Vice- 
gerent of the kingdom, so that he could say, My king- 
dom (L. 22: 30). As God's representative he has ab- 
solute control. He legislates for it and administers its 
laws (Matt. 11 : 27; 5: 20: 7: 24); he admits into its citi- 
zenship and excludes therefrom (Matt. 10: 32, 33); and 
he will be Judge (Matt. 25 : 34, 40-45). 

I. The Son of Man. This title Jesus adopted as 
appropriate to himself, and rarely used any other. In 
the Gospels it is used only twice by others, and both are 
probably quotations (L. 24:7; Jno. 12:34). Outside 
the Gospels, the name is found but once (Acts 7: 56), 
for the phrase 'son of man' in Revelation (i : 13; 14: 14) 
lacks the definite article, and refers not to the person of 
Jesus, but to the 'one like unto a son of man' of Daniel's 
vision. 

The question arises, Why did Jesus adopt this 
name? It is admitted by most, that its root idea must 



35 

be found in the Old Testament, since Jesus would nat- 
urally connect his person and work with the pre-mes- 
sianic preparation ; but there is wide divergence of 
opinion concerning the idea he meant to import into it. 
For example, Hofmann connects the name with Gen. 
3:15, and thinks that Jesus intended to teach that he is 
"the one in whom the hope of humanity is fulfilled;'" 
and Cremer says: "The son of ]\Ian' is a messianic con- 
ception, a messianic name given to Jesus by himself, 
chosen and adopted by him on account of the relation 
in which he stands as the promised 'seed of the woman' 
to his brethren." 

Schmid fancies that Ps. 8: 3-5 suggested the name 
to Christ. Since this Psalm speaks of the union of low- 
liness and dignity in man, lowliness because of his ma- 
terial insignificance in contrast with moon and stars, 
and dignity because akin to God in having dominion 
over animate creation, Jesus used it to call attention to 
himself as the ideal man, in whom is "the perfect union 
of the Son of [Man and the Son of God." There is no 
necessary improbability in this view, for the author of 
the letter to the Hebrews saw a connection between 
Jesus and the eighth Psalm (Heb. 2: 5-9). 

Bartlett calls attention to the fact that Christ 
pointed out the mission of the Son of ]^Ian to suiter 
and to save by sufTering, and so subsumed under the 
notion of the ideal man the idea of the Servant of Je- 
hovah portrayed in the 53rd of Isaiah. That is. Jesus 
did not select the familiar term Servant of Jehovah, 
but chose the ideas imbedded in the term and trans- 



S6 

f erred them to the less famihar title "'the Son of Man." 
The teaching of Isaiah was of more concern to Jesus 
than the name. 

Since Schleiermacher's day it has become almost a 
commonplace of New Testament theology to find in the 
title a reference to the ideally perfect man, or to Jesus' 
intimate and inalienable relation to human nature. 
There are various ways of expressing it, but all find the 
meaning of the name in the word man, or in the Hebra- 
ism "son of." Man and son of man are synonymous 
terms (Ps. 8: 3; Job. 25: 6; Isa. 51: 12; cf. Mk. 3: 28). 
'Son of is an orientalism meaning 'related to.' That is, a 
man may have a certain characteristic to such a degree 
as to be called the son of that characteristic, e. g. son of 
belial, son of folly, son of perdition. So, 'the Son of man' 
means the possession in a high degree of the attributes 
of humanity. Out of this general conception grow the 
views, that Jesus meant to intimate that he was the ar- 
chetypal man, or that he specially shared the weakness 
and frailty of man, or that he was uniquely allied to 
human nature, or that he had voluntarily put himself in 
relation with the whole human race. All these concep- 
tions are true, but it may be questioned whether any 
one of them was consciously present to Jesus' mind, 
when he adopted the name he seemed to love so well. 
They are too abstract and philosophic in tone to har- 
monize with his usual mode of thought. 

Most recent expositors think, and perhaps rightly, 
that the title must be linked with Dan. 7: 13; but some 
give up every attempt to find an Old Testament origin, 



37 

and regard it an expression of Jesus' messianic con- 
sciousness in the direction of his participation in human 
nature, or of his work for man. Thus, James Robert- 
son says: "If they (the titles the Son of man and the 
Son of God) were not taken from the Old Testament as 
prophetic synonyms for the Messiah, and were prac- 
tically new to his hearers, whence came they? We an- 
swer, they came out of his own heart. They were the 
expression of his own consciousness of himself. Two 
things he felt and knew himself in experience to be, the 
one of which brought him into fellowship with men, 
while the other kept him in intimate fellowship with 
God. Out of the former consciousness he called him- 
self the Son of man ; out of the latter, the S'on of God." 

But Christ usually appealed to the Old Testament 
in confirmation of his method and work, and it is a 
priori probable that the phrase 'the Son of man' has a 
history. We know also, that while he borrowed from 
the past, he put into borrowed phrases a significance 
hitherto little appreciated, or altogether unknown. 
Maybe the meaning of the phrase the Son of man was 
modified in a way analogous to the modification of the 
meaning of the phrase the kingdom of God. A study 
of its history and an induction from the passages in 
which it occurs will determine the probability of our 
conjecture. 

Daniel had a vision of four great world powers, 
each of which was symbolized by a beast indicating the 
nature of the kingdom. The symbolism is natural and 
intelligible, for nations now choose beasts or birds to 



38 

represent that which they think distinctive in their na- 
tional power. But succeeding and overpowering these 
kingdoms of Daniel's vision arises a power that will 
have 'one like unto a son of man' as its emblem. This 
kingdom is heavenly in origin, in contrast with the 
kingdoms that came up out of the sea, and its duration 
will be eternal, in comparison with the powers that are 
doomed to pass away, and its sway will be humane, in 
contrast to the ferocity of the beast kingdoms. As man 
was created superior to beasts, so a kingdom that takes 
man for its emblem must and will overcome kingdoms 
that takes brutes to represent the national ideal. From 
this point of view, Bruce admits that Jesus may have 
had Dan. 7: 13 in mind, and says: 'Tn adopting the 
title and style of the Son of man, as the Ruler of that 
kingdom, it was not alone the halo of apocalyptic glory 
that he had in view; it probably lay nearer his heart to 
accentuate his human sympathies." In reaching this 
conclusion Bruce overlooks the use of the Son of man 
in the book of Enoch, and he does not lay sufficient em- 
phasis on "apocalyptic glory." 

In Daniel the phrase suggests a people, the saints 
of the Most High ; but in the book of Enoch it denotes 
a supernatural person. Just as the term the Servant in 
Isaiah was limited from the nation as a unit to an indi- 
vidual of the nation, so 'son of man,' representing Is- 
rael, was individualized in the name 'the Son of man.' 

The book of Enoch speaks of the Son of man as 
pre-existent: "And at that hour, that Son of man was 
named in the presence of the Lord of Spirits and his 



39 

name before the Head of Days (48: 2 ; cf. 70: i) ; as hav- 
ing unHmited judicial authority: ''And there was great 
joy amongst them, and they blessed and glorified and 
extolled, because the name of the Son of Man was re- 
vealed unto them : and he sat on the throne of his glory, 
and the sum of judgment was committed unto him, the 
Son of man, and he caused the sinners and those who 
have led the world astray to pass away and be destroyed 
from ofY the face of the earth" (62: 26-29, cf. Jno. 5: 22, 
27); and as having universal dominion: ''And all the 
kings and mighty and the exalted and those who rule 
the earth will fall down on their faces before him and 
worship and set their hope upon that Son of man, and 
will petition him and supplicate for mercy at his hands" 
(62:5,6,9). 

The Son of man in the book of Enoch, then, does 
not refer to a person of lowliness and weakness, but to a 
person of supernatural origin and worldwide dominion. 
In fact, it is a messianic title. Jesus could well adopt it 
as appropriate, if he knew that he would sit on the right 
hand of power, and come with the clouds of heaven 
(Mk. 14:62). 

But it was not a current designation of the Mes- 
siah. The form of Jesus' question at Csesarea Philippi 
indicates that 'the Son of man' and 'the Christ' were not 
convertible terms (Matt. 16: 13-16), and the question of 
the perplexed multitude shows that the idea of a mes- 
sianic Son of man was novel (Jno. 12:34). Besides, 
Jesus always retained from announcing his messiah- 
ship. Therefore, just because it was not a familiar title 



40 

of the Messiah, he selected it, for he could the more 
easily give it currency with the meaning he wished to 
put into it. Yet this cannot be the whole solution of the 
problem, for it cannot be admitted that Jesus' choice of 
a title was determined solely by policy. 

For the rest of the solution we must study the pas- 
sages in which the title occurs. In Matthew the name 
is found thirty times, thirteen of which are apocalyptic, 
eleven refer to his sufifering and death and hopelessness 
of escape, and six occur in other connections. In Mark 
the title occurs fourteen times, three of which are apo- 
calyptic, two refer to his dignity, and nine allude to his 
betrayal, death and purpose of death. Luke records the 
name twenty-five times, of which ten are apocalyptic, 
seven refer to his suffering and death, and eight are 
used in various connections, John has the name 'the 
Son of man' nine times and 'Son of man' once. Five of 
these refer to Jesus' death and consequent glory, and 
the remainder to his messianic dignity and work. 

An induction from these passages will not warrant 
the conclusion that Jesus meant to teach his participa- 
tion in human nature, or that he was the ideal man. The 
great majority have no connection with the common 
lot of man, but with the uncommon suffering of Jesus 
and his future glory. The apocalyptic passages are ex- 
plained, if we suppose that Jesus meant to claim super- 
human glory and authority, and the texts that speak of 
suffering are explained, if we suppose that he intended 
to retain the transcendental claims implied in the Son 
of man as used by Enoch, and at the same time trans- 



41 

form the materialistic meaning of the term into the 
meaning of glory through sufifering. In this connec- 
tion Mark 9: 12 is significant. Substitute the Christ for 
the Son ol man, and Jesus' words would have found no 
response, for no Jew believed that the Messiah must 
sufifer many things and be set at naught. But Jesus in- 
tended to teach that the Scriptures were fulfilled in the 
suffering of the Son of man. He must have had in 
mind the suffering Servant of the 53rd of Isaiah. He 
thus prepared the disciples to join suffering with the 
Son of man — a suffering that had been appointed him. 

Again, in the discourse on service and greatness he 
points to the Son of man as the standard of greatness 
and service, great because servant, and thus joins the 
servant idea of Isaiah with his vicarious death (Mk. 10: 
35-45). Most significant is the union of the Son of man 
with Jesus' death and resurrection recorded in Luke 
24:7. Jesus suffered not because he was man and 
shared the common lot of man, but because he was the 
Son of man, the Messiah. 

Jesus selected the name the Son of man, then, be- 
cause it was messianic, but obscurely so, and put into 
it the unwelcome truth of Isaiah, that suffering and 
death await the Servant who will redeem Israel. To 
Jesus the title meant that he who has supernatural ori- 
gin and power must establish the kingdom of God on 
earth by redemptive suffering and death and resurrec- 
tion. To him it was a title of dignity; to the author of 
the book of Enoch it was a title of dignity; to the great 
majority of Jesus' hearers it conveyed no clear mean- 



42 

ing. It aroused inquiry, stimulated reflection, but 
solved nothing. To the people it offered a problem, not 
a solution. The solution came, when they came to 
think more of the Son of man, that saves by service of 
death, than of the Son of David, who was expected to 
save by force. The title claimed messianic dignity and 
at the same time corrected false views of messiahship. 

2. The Son of God. In English the noun 'son' 
has a meaning so definite, that it naturally suggests the 
idea of a male child, and distinct mental effort is re- 
quired to see in it any other meaning; but in Hebrew 
this primary idea gave rise to a variety of conceptions, 
each of which, however, was readily derived from the 
strict physiological notion. The expression 'son of de- 
notes a relationship more or less intimate. The sort of 
relationship must be determined in each instance by the 
context in which the phrase occurs. The term 'the Son 
of God,' then, means, in its broadest signification, that 
the person of whom sonship is predicated has some re- 
lation to God. To illustrate, in the Old Testament, the 
Hebrew nation is called son, because Jehovah selected 
it from among all nations to be his own (Ex. 4: 22; cf. 
Hos. II : i); and since the nation as a unit was related 
to God, individual members of the nation are sons (Dt. 
14: I ; cf. Hos. 1 : 10). Within the nation were persons, 
who, by virtue of their selection to be administrators of 
Jehovah's law, had special relation to Him, and there- 
fore called "sons of the Most High" (Ps. 82 : 6) ; and the 
king of Israel, selected from all the families of Israel to 



be God's vicegerent, is called by Jehovah 'My Son' (2 
Sam. 7: 14: cf. Ps. 2: 7). 

From another point of view, but yet from the fact 
of intimate relationship, angels are called "sons of 
God," because they are like God in being superhuman 
(Ps. 89:6; cf. Job. 1:6; Gen. 6:2). Again, men are 
spoken of as sons of God. when they exhibit in a high 
degree the moral qualities that find their perfection in 
God. Thus the author of the \Msdom of Solomon 
writes. "For if the righteous man is God's son, he will 
uphold him" (2: 18). This ethical relationship is fre- 
quently expressed by the figure of sonship in the litera- 
ture of the inter-biblical period, and is common in the 
Xew Testament. 

. The Xew Testament presents the same varying no- 
tion of divine sonship. Jesus speaks of the resurrection 
as introducing men into a state of being analogous to 
that of angels, and thereby becoming "sons of God" 
(L. 20: 36): he also calls those who love their enemies 
sons of God, because they resemble God in loving the 
unlovely (]\Iatt. 5 : 45 : cf. Jno. i : 12). 

Luke says that Adam was God's son (3: t,S). The 
ground of Adam's sonship is not given, but evidently 
Luke thought of the unique relationship existing be- 
tween God and man by virtue of the fact that man was 
created in God's image. 

Luke thinks also of sonship in the strictly physio- 
logical sense, when he says that Jesus was begotten bv 
divine power (i : 35). 

The Old Testament idea of theocratic sonship of 



44 

Israel's king is carried into the New, and Jesus is called 
''the Son of God," because appointed by God to do mes- 
'sianic work (Jno. 1:50; Matt. 16: 16; cf. Mt. 3: 17; 

17:5)- ^ 

It is conceivable, then, that the title 'the Son of 
God' may be applied to Jesus as a member of the human 
race, or as peculiarly like God in moral perfection (Mt. 
11: 27), or as supernaturally begotten (L. i: 35), or as 
the one appointed to be Vicegerent of God's kingdom 
upon earth (Mk. i : 11 ; 9: 6), or as having some other 
relation, different from any one of those, the nature of 
which must be determined by the texts and connections 
where the title occurs. 

But it is of little moment what the expression may 
mean ; it is of first importance to know what it probably 
did mean. An induction from the passages in which it 
occurs must determine its signification. 

The title 'the Son of God' was given to Jesus twice 
by Satan during the temptation, thrice by demoniacs 
(L. 4:41; Mk. 3: 11; Mt. 8:29), once by his enemies 
(Mt. 27: 40, 43), once by a heathen centurion (Mt. 27: 
54; Mk. 15: 39), and twice by his disciples (Mt. 14: 33; 
16: 16). 

All these passages, except one, show that super- 
human power was attributed to the one called the Son 
OF God. The excepted passage simply gives Peter's be- 
lief that Jesus is the Messiah of Old Testament predic- 
tion. Satan's use of the title did not refer to Jesus' of- 
fice of Messiah so much as to his consciousness of son- 
ship, which was the foundation and condition of en- 



45 

trance upon messianic work (Mk. i: ii) and the en- 
couragement for its completion (Mk. 9:7). 

Jesus did not use the title of himself except under 
oath (Mt. 26: 63, 64). To know what Jesus affirmed we 
must know what the High Priest meant. Did the Priest 
ask, Art thou the one set apart by God and qualified by 
Him to be the Christ? Xo doubt, this was the force of 
the question, so that to the questioner Jesus simply af- 
firmed that he was the expected theocratic king; but he 
put more into the title the 'Son of God,' than the Priest, 
for he immediately adds, ''But henceforth will the Son 
of man be seated on the right hand of the power of 
God." The hearers see the force of the implication, and 
ask, "Art thou the Son of God, then" (L. 22: 70). That 
is, they see a divine as well as messianic claim in Jesus' 
words concerning his dignity. The expression meant 
more to Jesus than a mere title. There can be no ser- 
ious objection to the supposition that the name referred 
to supernatural origin, since the Book of Enoch re- 
gards the Messiah as supernatural. 

Jesus called himself 'the Son.' He cannot mean 
that he is son as other men are sons, except in higher 
degree; that is, that he is uniquely God's son, because 
he is uniquely like God in moral excellence. Luke 10: 
17-20 and Matthew 11: 27-30 point to a knowledge of 
divine purposes and possession of divine secrets impos- 
sible to man, however like God he may be in character. 
Besides, Jesus' excellence of character needs account- 
ing for.. 

In the parable of the Wicked Husbandman, Jesus 



46 

calls himself "the one and beloved Son" in contrast with 
the mighty ones of Israel (Mk. 12: 1-12). He is God's 
son in a sense, prophets are not. He distinctly ranks 
himself above them. 

In Mark 13: 32 he makes himself superior to an- 
gels and so near God that it is surprising that he lacks 
knowledge that belongs to God. 

The study of the title, then, shows the appropriate- 
ness of the definite article. He is not a son of God as 
other Israelites, or as others who are peacemakers and 
lovers of enemies, but he is the Son of God. This unique 
sonship is also implied in the fact that he never asso- 
ciates others with himself, when he calls God Father. 
He usually and carefuhy says 'my Father' and 'your 
Father,' and in such a way as to suggest that he meant 
something in so doing. The "our Father" of the 'Model 
Prayer' is no exception, for he puts that petition into 
the mouths of his disciples; he and they do not join in 
offering it. 

That the claim of sonship was not equivalent to the 
claim of messiahship may also be inferred from the fact, 
that he thought of God as Father years before he was 
set apart for messianic work. Beyschlag is evidently 
right in saying that the name, the Son of God, was the 
expression of personal consciousness rather than official 
relationship. 

While we may not dogmatically say that Jesus in- 
tended to convey the impression that he was conscious 
of sharing the divine nature, yet the title fitly expresses 



all that his followers gained from reflection on his per- 
son and work. 

But to prevent imponing too much into the name 
it is well to bear in mind certain limitations, e. g. Jesus' 
ignorance of the day of his return (Mk. 13:32). de- 
pendence on God for miracle-working power (Mt. 12: 
28), seeming divergence of his own will from that of the 
Father (Mk. 14: 36). and the fact that he prayed. 

In summing up the evidence, we" find, that (i 1 the 
title "the Son of God' signified that Jesus knew himself 
to be chosen of God to be the Messiah: that (2) he was 
chosen because he had a wholly unique relation to God. 
— a relation so unique as to suggest readily a meta- 
physical mystery (^It. 11 : 27-30. 

3. Messiah. Christ. Axoixted. Priests (Lev. 4: 
3. 5. 16: 6: 22). prophets ( i K. 19: 16: Ps. 105: 15. cf. I. 
Chron. 16:22) and kings (i K. 19: 16) were anointed 
when invested with official authority, so that the word 
'messiah' does not of itself indicate a king: but of the 
thirty-nine times in which it is used in the Old Testa- 
ment thirty refer to a king. Xaturally the word came 
to be a synonym for king {1 Sam. 10: i : 24: 6: Isa. 45 : 
i: ^Ik. 15:32). It was the technical name the Jews 
gave to their expected deliverer (Enoch 48: 10: 52:4: 
Ps. oi Sol. 17: 36: 18: 6. 8: ^latt. 22: 42: 24: 5. 23 k 

Jesus did not openly announce himself to be the 
Messiah until quite late in the Galilean ministry. Di- 
dactic reasons account for this reticence. To the Jews 
the name Messiah suggested ideas that Jesus could not 
endorse. If at the outset of his ministrv he had 



4S 

openly declared his messiahship, he would have aroused 
vain hopes, probably have precipitated a revolution, 
and brought himself in conflict with Roman authority. 
He preferred to remain incognito, until he had in some 
measure taught the true nature of the kingdom of God. 

The method of Jesus' self-revelation is intelligible, 
if the national expectation of the Jews' and Jesus' con- 
ception of his mission be kept in mind. He illustrated 
in himself his own precept: "Become therefore wary 
as serpents, and simple as doves." His purpose was to 
claim the office of Messiah and at the same time change 
the meaning of the title, — to show that he was conscious 
of divine anointing and yet refuse the throne of his 
father David. 

His messianic claim was both indirect and direct. 
Indirectly he intended that his words and works should 
testify to his office. 

I.) Teaching. His teaching was so spontaneous, 
so direct, so searching and so axiomatically true, that it 
was acknowledged to be authoritative (Mk. i : 22) ; 
and even miracles were unable to distract attention 
from the singular authority evidenced by his speech 
(Mk. 1:27). His knowledge of God was so intimate 
that he offered comfort to the distressed (Mt. 11:28- 
30), announced the forgiveness of sins (Mk. 2: 10), and 
invited sinners to the salvation of the kingdom (Mk. 2: 
17). He was qualified to do this by divine anointing 
(L. 4: 18), and therefore knew that he was a prophet 
(Mk. 6: 4; L. 13: 33), but superior to the most eiTfectivc 
preacher of righteousness named in Israel's history 



49 

(L. II : 32). In this way Jesus exalted himself as pro- 
phet and drew attention to the prophetic functions of 
the Messiah, in opposition to the popular notions of his 
kingly functions. 

2.) IMiRACLE-woRKixG. The miracles of Jesus at- 
tested his office. They showed that he must have some 
relation to the kingdom of God, for he was doing works 
worthy of God. Suppression of Satanic power was as- 
suredly worthy of him who inaugurated the reign of 
God; and since it was admitted that Jesus was over- 
coming evil in its direst manifestation, he boldly de- 
manded that his adversaries admit the inevitable con- 
clusion. He not only announced the kingdom's ap- 
proach, but he brought it: it came in him (Alt. 12: 28). 
But since it came in an unexpected way. it was in the 
midst of them, and they knew it not (L. 17: 21). That 
is, while miracles are in themselves credentials of a di- 
vine messenger, they may be of such nature as not to 
reveal the messianic character of the messenger. For 
this reason John the Baptist stumbled at the kind of 
work Jesus did. Jesus replied that his miracles were 
evidences, not only of the fact that he was the Christ, 
but also of the kind of Christ he was. They showed the 
gracious benefits of the kingdom (Mt. 11:5), in con- 
trast with the penal aspects that John had proclaimed. 
In this reply Jesus directly claimed that his works testi- 
fied to the fact that he w^as 'the Coming One' whom 
John had announced, in spite of the Forerunner's in- 
ability to understand the nature of his work. 

3. Messianic Claims. Jesus was not content to 



50 

have recognition of his office depend on inferences from 
his teaching and heaUng. He distinctly claimed messianic 
dignity. He said that he was greater than Solomon or 
Jonah (Mt. 12: 41, 42), that he was Lord of the Temple 
(Mt. 12: 6) and of the Sabbath (Mk. 2: 28). So bold a 
claim could not go unchallenged, and so plots were 
formed to kill him. He compared his own teaching with 
that of Moses to the disadvantage of the divinely 
equipped founder and lawgiver (Mt. 5:2ifTf.), and 
placed so high value on his own precepts, that he con- 
ceived no storm sufficiently violent to overthrow char- 
acter built thereon (Mt. 7: 24f.). He felt himself to be 
of such worth, that those who received him received 
God (Mt. 10: 40), and that men's treatment of him will 
determine their standing before God (Mt. 10: 32, 33). 
He unhesitatingly claimed authority over man's con- 
science and conduct, and imagined no earthly tie strong 
enough to be an excuse for refusing to follow him (L. 
9: 59-62); and he declared that human history prior to 
his coming had its goal in him, and that in him all sub- 
sequent history will be consummated (Mt. 25: 31-46). 
More astounding still, if possible, he quietly assumed 
the right to announce the forgiveness of sin. and so 
claimed a prerogative that belongs to God alone 
(Mk.2:5f.). 

While making these claims he betrays no feeling 
of presumption, but speaks artlessly as a child and au- 
thoritatively as God. This sublime self-assertion is in- 
conceivable, unless he knew himself to be the Messiah, 
the Son of God. 



51 

It is no wonder that men seeing the works and 
hearing the words of Jesus eagerly asked, Who is he? 
It is no wonder that he awakened universal curiosity, 
and that all Palestine was in intellectual ferment. Nor 
is it strange that the consensus of opinion was that 
Jesus was no ordinary man, but one endowed with su- 
perhuman power. No one but John the Baptist re- 
turned from the dead, or Elijah, or Jeremiah, or one of 
the Old Testament prophets restored to life, could so 
work and so speak (Mt. i6: I3f.)- High as was the gen- 
eral estimate, it fell far short of the truth. Only the con- 
fession of his most intimate followers that He was the di- 
vinely appointed Messiah satisfied Jesus' conception of 
himself (Mt. i6: i6f.). He joyfully accepted the title as 
appropriate, but commanded the disciples not to di- 
vulge their discovery to others. 

This command had the same didactic reason as 
his own reticence concerning his messiahship, for the 
disciples thought their knowledge was complete, but 
Jesus knew that it was partial. If they had told their dis- 
covery they would have heralded their own view, rather 
than Jesus' view, and so preached error. They knew 
that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, but they did not 
know that the Christ must suffer. How far removed 
from the truth was the Jewish notion of the nature of the 
Messiah's service may be seen from Jesus' rebuke of 
Peter. Jesus' conception of himself as sufferer was of 
God ; Peter's suggestion that this was impossible to the 
Christ was prompted by Satan (Mt. i6: 21-23). The 
Jews thought that the Messiah would rule by force; 



62 

Jesus knew that he must rule by service (Mk. lo: 42- 
45). In his endeavor to right their views he suffered 
death (Mk. 15: 32), but in suffering and dying he ful- 
filled the Old Testament view of the Messiah (L. 24: 
26, 46). 

It is noticeable that after Peter's confession Jesus 
applies the name Messiah to himself in the hearing of 
his disciples, and they know that he meant himself (Mk. 
9: 41 ; Mt. 23: 10). The vehemence with which he cau- 
tioned them against false christs is based on the as- 
sumption that he knew himself to be the true Christ 
(Mt. 24: 5, 23), and under oath he declared that he was 
the Messiah (Mt. 26: 64). It is not accidental, but 
necessary for his purpose, that the period of the revela- 
tion of his office should coincide with the period of his 
instruction concerning his death. The consciousness 
that he must die belonged to his consciousness that he 
was the Messiah. 

Jesus received the endowment necessary for his 
messianic work at his baptism (Mk. i: 10; cf. Acts 10: 
38; Mt. 12: 28; L. 11: 19). Whether his miracle-work- 
ing power was the consequence of anointing, or wheth- 
er such power was inherent and unconditioned by the 
descent of the Spirit is a matter of pure speculation. 
The miracle-working of Jesus is part of the greater 
miracle, — the person of Jesus. 

4.) The Son of David. Jesus did not use this title. 
It was employed by those outside of the circle of his im- 
mediate followers. Their use of it shows what they con- 
ceived the Messiah to be: namely, a descendant of Da- 



53 

vid (Matt. 9: 27; Mk. 10: 47, 48), whose work would be 
to restore the kingdom of David (Mk. 11: 10). The 
popular expectation was that the Messiah would be 
king of Israel (Mk. 15 : 32). 

That Jesus was the son of David admits of ilo 
doubt, for the doctrine of the Davidic descent Was part 
of the apostolic gospel ((II Tim. 2:8; cf. Rom. 1:3; 
Heb. 7: 14; Rev. 5: 5; 22: 16; Matt, i: i). 

Some interpret Mark 12: 35-37 to mean that Jesus 
denied his Davidic sonship, but if this is so, it is difficult 
to understand why his followers persistently perpetua- 
ted a claim against which he protested. A truer inter- 
pretation of the passage is, that Jesus intended to in- 
struct the people in the dignity of the Messiah, in oppos- 
ition to the carnal and narrow beliefs of the scribes. It 
is significant that the Psalm that Jesus quotes is more 
frequently quoted in the New Testament than any other 
Scripture, and that it is used by the Apostles to describe 
Jesus' exaltation in glory. It is only natural that Jesus' 
follow^ers should have gotten their interpretation from 
their Teacher. 

Jesus could not have meant to disclaim Davidic 
sonship, for if there is any connection between predic- 
tion and fulfillment, between preparation and consum- 
mation, between the revelation of God in Israel and his 
revelation in Jesus Christ, he must be of the seed of Da- 
vid, and therefore entitled to exercise royal authority. 
The interpretation of the scribes was thoroughly cor- 
rect and justifiable, but it was one-sided. They imag- 
ined that the descent from David would be the Mes- 



54 

siah's sole claim to Israel's throne, and were thus un- 
prepared for the puzzling question, Whence is he his 
son? It was a puzzle simply because they unduly efn- 
phasized the sonship, and suspected that the 
Psalmist did not use the title Lord in a merely 
honorific sense. They were shrewd enough to 
conceive that a mightier and nobler than David might 
possibly arise in David's line, and so wring from him 
the homage due a superior. Jesus' question confound- 
ed his hearers, because they perceived that it was a 
question of descent of the Messiah, and not of his oflice. 
He intended to show that his consciousness of messiah- 
ship is not conditioned on his descent from David mere- 
ly, but on a descent whose source is intentionally left 
obscure to carnally minded scribes, while it is know to 
him. 

Jesus is 'son of David', but this means much more 
than that he has David's blood and is David's heir. He 
accepted the title as appropriate and true (Matt. 21 : 15- 
17); by his triumphal entry he assumed kingly dignity 
(Mk. II : i-ii); he acknowledged his kingship to Pilate 
(Mk. 15:2); and he felt himself to be so really king, that 
he said if men refused him the honor, the stones of the 
street must proclaim his royal authority (L. 19: 40). 

But his question to the scribes shows that he did 
not think of his authority in connection with the throne 
of David. At no time in his life did he contemplate 
getting the kingdoms of the world and the glory of 
them, for he early hinted at his death (Mk. 2 : 20) and 
openly announced it to his disciples after they had con- 



55 

fessed him to be the Christ (Mk. 8:31, 32). He knew, 
however, that death would not prevent him from exer- 
cising royal power, for he knew that he would arise 
from the grave after a very short burial (Mk. 8: 32), and 
manifest his power over enemies (Matt. 21:42). This 
kingly authority is so absolute, that he will exercise the 
judicial function of determing the rewards and penalties 
due men of all nations (Matt. 25 : 32), and will perpet- 
ually protect and aid his subjects in extending his 
kingdom in the world (Matt. 28: 18: 20). 

Conscious of such dignity and authority, it is no 
wonder he asked. How say the scribes that the Christ 
is David's son? Nor is it strange that those who em- 
phasized unwarrantably the legal descent of the Mes- 
siah from an ancestral king were confounded. 

Jesus is David's son and he is David's Lord. He is 
son, because descended from David; he is Lord, be- 
cause he has kingly authority that cannot be explained 
by lineal descent from David. 

THE AVORK OF THE VICEGERENT. 

I. The Nature OF His Work. Since Jesus knew 
himself to be God's Vicegerent, he could consistently 
say, when speaking of his mission to preach elsewhere 
than in Capernaum, 'To this end came I forth' (Mk. 
i: 38), and 'For this I was sent forth' (L. 4: 43). The 
verbs came and sent are appropriate to him as rep- 
resenting the King. He defined his work in the words, 
''I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God." 
In the course of his ministry he defined the nature of 
the kingdom more exactly by stating what he came to 



56 

do and what he did not come to do. It was not his mis- 
sion to assume sovereignty over the poHtical divisions 
of the world (Matt. 4: 8-1 1), nor act as arbitrator in the 
distribution of property (L. 12: 14). It was his work to 
heal the morally sick (Mk. 2: 17), to seek the lost (Matt. 
15: 24; L. 19: 10), invite sinners to repentance (Matt. 9: 
13; Mk. 2: 17) and to give peace to burdened con- 
sciences by announcing the forgiveness of sins (L. 7: 
47-50). He did this, because he alone knew the father- 
ly heart of God and knew the Father's redemptive pur- 
poses toward the weary and heavy laden. The intimate 
relation between Father and Son made the invitation 
inevitable : ''Come to me all ye that labor and are heavy 
laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on you, 
and learn from me; because I am meek and lowly in 
heart; and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Matt. 11 : 

25-30). 

2. Means of Accomplishing His Work. i). 
Teaching. Jesus necessarily had prophetic work to do, 
for he was compelled to interpret the nature of the king- 
dom of God and vindicate his method of establishing it. 
He outranked the Old Testament prophets, for his invi- 
tation to repent was not merely a demand for righteous- 
ness, but was itself a means of effecting repentance. 
Jesus promised to impart the righteousness he demand- 
ed (Matt. 5:6; 11: 28-30). He directly antagonized the 
pharisaic teaching that salvation is the reward for fast- 
ings, washings, almsgiving and sabbatic observances; 
and taught that salvation flows from the immeasurable 
goodness of God. Such teaching seemed to annul the 



law and the prophets. In consequence the authorative 
Teacher had to say, "Think not that I came to destroy 
the law or the prophets : I came not to destroy, but to 
fulfill." 

Jesus, then, assumed both a positive and negative 
attitude towards the Old Testament revelation. His 
affirmative position is seen in his constant appeal to its 
authority, in his rebuke of the scribes for their perver- 
sion of its meaning, and in the fact that he held himself 
amenable to its requirements both in teaching and con- 
duct. So certain was he of the perpetual validity of the 
law, that he asserted that his own position in the king- 
dom of God was conditioned by his obedience to one of 
the least commandments (Matt. 5: 1-19). 

His negative position is illustrated in the declara- 
tion that the Mosaic enactment concerning divorce did 
not adequately declare God's will ; in the revolutionary 
statement, "There is nothing from without the man, 
that going into him can defile him : but the things which 
proceed out of the man are those that defile the man;" 
and in the bold claim to be more authorative than 
Moses (Matt. 5:20-48). 

The question arises, How could Jesus fulfill the 
law, and at the same time depart from its precepts? 
The answer lies in what Jesus knew himself to be. Be- 
fore he could pass judgment on the value of the law as 
a revelation, he had to have some standard of compari- 
son. He himself was the standard. He knew that he 
knew perfectly well the will of God, and that in himself 
was the perfect revelation of God (Matt. 11 : 2"/). Jesus, 



58 

then, tested the law by his own knowledge of the Father 
and discovered that it failed to reveal truly the divine 
perfections. He who was consciously superior to 
Moses, Solomon and Jonah, and who claimed lordship 
over the Temple and the Sabbath could without self- 
contradiction assume authority to pass judgment on 
the legal literature of his people. But in doing this he 
did not legislatively abrogate the law. His mission was 
one of fulfilment, not of legislation; and the fulfil- 
ment pertained to the law in its entirety, — its civil, cere- 
monial and moral enactments. 

Jesus used the word 'fuliil' in two senses. He ful- 
filled the law in not breaking it. He pointedly said, 
"Whoever therefore shall break one of these least com- 
mandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least 
in the kingdom of heaven; but whover shall do and 
teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of 
heaven." In this declaration he denies that he is a law 
breaker, for certainly he did not think himself least in 
the kingdom. But to say that Jesus obeyed the law is 
to say little, for as a good Jew he obeyed civil and ritual 
regulation, and his spotless purity demanded that he 
obey moral requirements. Hence while 'to fulfil' must 
mean to obey, it must mean also much more than obedi- 
ence. 

Jesus contrasted 'I say unto you' with 'it was said 
to those of old.' This contrast shows the other mean- 
ing that belongs to the word fulfil. The Mosaic legis- 
lation was given at a definite time of the world's his- 
tory, and partook of the limitations inherent in that 



59 

epoch. It did not express fully the character of God. 
nor reflect the moral condition of the people to whom it 
was given. It was enacted as a means of education; 
hence, it must not be too hign nor too low. Too rigid 
laws beget despair, and too lax legislation is not disci- 
plinary. The historically conditioned makes accom- 
modation necessary ; accommodation makes fulfilment 
necessary. As the human race advances, the laws gov- 
erning it must keep pace. In the process, preceding- 
laws are not simply repealed; their moral content is 
taken up anc embodied in new enactments. The re- 
statement of the moral principle involved in the old law 
is a fulfilment of the old. - 

When an enacted law hides the principle that led 
to its enactment, conscience is satisfied only when the 
moral content is declared to be the standard. This is 
just what Jesus did. He filled the statute full of the 
meaning the divine Lawgiver intended, i. e. he fulfilled 
it. For example, the law forbidding murder under 
penalty of death was interpreted rightly as referring to 
homicide, or expressed otherwise, it forbade harboring 
anger so hot as to impel to manslaughter. Jesus says, 
that a man must not only not be angry enough to kill his 
fellowman, but he must not be angry enough to call 
him an empty head or a fool. Thus interpreted the law 
forbids angry feeling, not merely ihe outward manifes- 
tation of anger in murder (]\Iatt. 5 : 21-26). 

Likewise Jesus fulfilled the ceremonial laws by in- 
terpreting them. The commandments regarding clean- 
ness and uncleanness were symbolical. They taught 



60 

the truth that there is no pollution except moral pollu- 
tion. Symbolical representation of this truth was ne- 
cessary, because Israel was unable to appreciate the 
value of moral purity. Because of the inherent ten- 
dency of the human heart, Israel emphasized the sym- 
bol, and so missed the purpose of ceremonial cleansing. 
Now, in the case of symbols and rites the most efifective 
way to interpret them is to break them. Jesus did this ; 
he broke the shell in order to bring to light the kernel ; 
he magnified moral defilement by brushing aside that 
which simply shadowed it. Men no longer confound 
cleansing of the hands with cleansing of the heart, be- 
cause the Mosaic ordinances of cleansing fulfilled their 
mission. 

The law in its entirety, then, Jesus fulfilled, because 
he, as the complete revelation of God, filled to the full 
the preliminary revelation given in Old Testament leg- 
islation. In him 'all things were accomplished.' The 
law in statute form passed away, but in its ethical re- 
quirements it abides, because Jesus Christ abides. 

Jesus fulfilled the prophets also. Here, too, the 
word 'fulfil' has as many meanings as the prophet had 
functions. Since prophets demanded right conduct, he 
fulfilled them by living the moral and religious life they 
demanded; since they were God's servants to preach 
good tidings to broken-hearted Israel languishing in 
captivity, and so types of the ideal Servant, he fulfilled 
the type by doing in the moral and religious sphere 
what the prophets did in the political. As Isaiah pro- 
claimed the acceptable year of the Lord to prisoners in 



61 . 

Babylon, Jesus proclaimed liberty in Xazareth to those 
enslaved in sin, and thus laid bare the real meaning of 
Isaiah's glad proclamation (L. 4: 16-19). 

Again, since prophets predicted the coming of a 
person who would reign and suffer, their words could 
be fulfilled only by coming true; that is, there must 
happen in fact what was promised in word. So Jesus 
rode into Jerusalem on a royal beast, thereby claiming 
to be the king of Zachariah's prediction (Mk. 11: i-i i) : 
he died and rose again in glory, and in so doing claimed 
to be the Christ of the prophets (L. 24: 25, 26). 

Jesus Christ, then, fulfilled the law and the pro- 
phets by being the end for which they existed. The his- 
tory and literature of the Jewish nation have no mean- 
ing apart from him. He fulfilled them, because they 
are filled full of him. 

2). Healixg. Xot only by word, but also by deed, 
Jesus showed the saving benefits of his mission. He 
healed because it was part of his messianic work (]\Iatt. 
11: 5 : L. 13 : 32). His miracles served at least three dis- 
tinct purposes. First, they attested his person and his 
work, for they were evidences that God was working 
through him (Matt. 12 : 28 : cf. L. 11: 20). Second, they 
served as gestures to emphasize his words. He spoke 
words of grace, and demonstrated by act that he had 
the compassion he said he had. A notable instances of 
this is the healing of the leper (Mk. i : 41). The leper 
had good reason to doubt the willingness of Jesus, for 
his experience had taught him that no man had sym- 
pathy for him, but rather shunned him as an unclean 



62 

thing, under the curse of God. He asks himself, Will 
this wondrous healer treat me as other men do? Jesus 
dispelled his doubts by coming into fellowship with 
him; he touched him. The touch of Jesus demonstrated 
beyond a doubt the 'I will.' The Savior's compassion- 
ate willingness is exemplified in the act of contact. 
Third, miracles illustrated the nature of Jesus' work in 
the spiritual sphere, for relief of physical distress sym- 
bolized the higher good to be enjoyed in the salvation 
of the soul. To forgive sins was a higher function than 
to heal the paralytic ; the latter is incidental to the form- 
er (Mk. 2: 1-12). His frequent commands that his mir- 
acles should not be noised abroad and his constant re- 
fusal to work signs on demand show that Jesus did not 
regard miracles as ends in themselves. With some 
truth it may be said, that the last two characteristics 
differentiate the miracles of Jesus from the miracles oi 
Old Testament prophets and New Testaments apos- 
tles. 

As teacher and healer Jesus' work was confined to 
Palestine. The reason for this concentration of activity 
is two-fold. The Jews alone could understand the terms 
Jesus used when talking about God, sin and salvation, 
for they had learned their meaning by centuries of 
training. Heathenism could have given no point of 
contact for Christ's teaching. 

Again, like a wise instructor he limited the range 
of his work. He could not cover a wide area effectively 
in a short lifetime, since he was compelled to repeat his 
words often and present the truth from different angles 



G3 

and emphasize his message by personal association, in 
order to impart instruction to men little prepared to re- 
ceive it. 

Jesus rigorously maintained this policy of concen- 
tration. He never entered gentile towns to teach, and 
when his presence in such towns was discovered, he re- 
fused to heal the sick, because beyond the sphere of his 
work i^Iatt. 15:24). During his lifetime he forl^ade 
his disciples proclaim the gospel in heathen and half- 
heathen districts (]\Iatt. 10: 6). This, however, was due 
to the additional reason that the disciples were dis- 
qualified by prejudice and lack of love to bear glad tid- 
ings to gentiles and Samaritans. 

Jesus did not intend that his hearers should under- 
stand that Israelites alone were the objects of his saving- 
work, for the Old Testament taught differently, and his 
own requirement of faith as the condition of receiving 
the good he brought showed that gentiles may share his 
salvation (^latt. 15 : 28). There can be no geographical 
or natural barriers to salvation, when a state of mind 
and heart is the sole condition of receiving it. 

]^Ioreover, the illustration of the "Good Samari- 
tan" is proof that Jesus had no sentimental notion of the 
superior advantage of Israelites; and he explicitly 
stated that the blessedness of the kingdom of heaven 
will be shared by those outside of the Jewish nation 
(Matt. 8:11). 

The marvellous patience and optimism of Jesus are 
exhibited in the fact, that in spite of the narrowness of 
his field of labor and of the dullness of his pupils and 



64 

indifference of his hearers to moral beauty, he was not 
discouraged. He was content to secure a sure basis of 
operation from which his kingdom could be extended. 
He was confident that, though small in its beginning, 
the kingdom of God would attain surprising magnitude 
(Mk. 4:26-32). 

3). Service of Jesus' Death. The service of 
teaching and healing did not exhaust Jesus' mission. 
His best service was voluntary death for the good of 
others (Mk. 10: 45). That he did not make this service 
prominent until late in his ministry is no proof that he 
was ignorant of it in his earlier ministry. On the con- 
trary, he early announced the mourning that must fol- 
low the sudden snatching away of the bridegroom (Mk. 
2: 20) ; and somewhat later he told his enemies that they 
would see in his temporary burial a sign of his messiah- 
ship (Matt. 12:39, 40). After Peter's confession he 
openly announced the bloody death awaiting him, and 
frequently repeated the announcement with fuller de- 
tails (Matt. 17: 22, 20; 17-19, 28; 26: 2, 12, 24). 

He could not be explicit earlier, for he had to win 
the love of his followers for himself as teacher before he 
could give them unwelcome truth. A suffering Christ 
was to them a contradiction in terms ; it was a paradox 
that repelled. The Teacher that expressed it would 
have been abandoned, unless the pupils had become at- 
tached to him as friend through prior companionship. 
So Jesus patiently taught them as they were able to 
bear instruction. 

Another significant thing is, that Jesus did not em- 



05 

phasize the meaning and purpose of his death as his 
Apostles did after the resurrection. This fact, too, is to 
be accounted for by the necessity of the case; for it 
would have been useless to talk about the purpose of a 
fact when the fact itself was disbelieved. How could 
the disciples have any comprehension of the purpose 
of Jesus' death, when they could not believe that he 
would die? When his death became a fact in history, 
then they were in a position to measure its significance. 
From the very first, they conceived the death of Christ 
in connection with human sin (I Cor. 15: 3). Paul did 
not 'think out' the saving significance of Christ's death, 
for he got the doctrine from others ; and the short time 
elapsing between the crucifixion of Jestis and the con- 
version of Paul will not permit the stipposition that 
Peter, James or John constructed a philosophy of the 
facts of their blaster's life, death and resurrection in re- 
lation to God and man, unless they are credited with 
powers of imagination and abstract thought not dis- 
coverable in what is told of them in the Gospels. We 
are then led to ask. whether there is not a genetic con- 
nection between the teaching of Jesus and the preach- 
ing of his Apostles, and whether the sayings of Jesus do 
not preserve some teaching on the significance of his 
death. 

The death of Jesus was unique; never before was 
there such a death. It was not suicide committed in a 
moment of despair, but a gift of free love for the un- 
deserving. It was not an accident, nor such a death as 
may come in the ordinary providence of God. It was 



m 

not a national calamity, like the death of Josiah or the 
execution of John the Baptist; nor was it simply a mar- 
tyrdom for the truth, such as he demanded of his fol- 
lowers. No doubt, there is truth in the statement that 
Jesus died as a martry for the sake of righteousness, for 
rather than deny his teaching he suffered, and he ex- 
pressly said that in so doing he would meet a phophet's 
fate (L. 13: 33); but it is also true, that his constant as- 
sertion that he was under divine necessity to die (Matt. 
16:21; 26:31, 42), and that his death was in accord 
with God's purposes as revealed in the Old Testament 
(Matt. 26: 54, 56; L. 22: 37), and his consciousness of 
being of so much value that his life was an equivalent 
to the life of many (Mk. 10: 45) show that his death can- 
not be thought of as the result of a martry's holy en- 
thusiasm for truth. 

Again, Jesus' death is distinguished from that of an 
ordinary martyr in that he died for love to man, rather 
than for love of truth. It is comparatively easy to yield 
life ior what one believes to be the truth ; it is difBcult 
to die deliberately for the advantage of another; it is 
common to normal men to love right in the abstract, 
but is is exceptional to love men well enough to make 
them right in. conduct; it is'not often that a friend dies 
for a friend, but Jesus died for sinners. If, then, he be 
ranked with martyrs, he must be considered unique 
among them, and so unique as to demand explanation. 

The first unique fact in Jesus' death, then, is that 
it was of specific divine appointment, in accordance 
with God's predetermined purposes; the second unique 



67 

fact is that Jesus deliberately gave what it was in his 
power to keep. He had only to make request of the 
Father and legions of angels would have hastened to 
his rescue, but he did not (Matt. 26: 53). The third 
unique fact is that he knew himself to be worth all he 
came to ransom (Mk. 10:45). The one Son of man 
equalled in value the many. The last two points are es- 
sential in any view of Christ's death, for the merit of 
death as redemptive consists in the willingness and 
worth of the sufferer; and the first suggests that the 
death of Jesus had some relation to God, other than an 
expression of the Father's love, especially when viewed 
in the light of Gethsemane's agony and the cry from the 
cross. 

What value Jesus' death had for man can be gath- 
ered from the accounts of the crucifixion and from 
Matt. 20:28 (cf. Mk. 10:45) and 26:28(:\Ik. 14:24; 
L. 22.: 19, 20). 

The parable of the Wicked Husbandmen gives the 
clue to an understanding of the relation between Jesus 
and the Jews. The Jewish nation was God's vineyard, 
over which he had placed civil and ecclesiastical rulers, 
whose business it was to cultivate the fruits of right- 
eousness. At intervals the Proprietor sent prophets to 
demand the expected fruits. There is conflict of au- 
thority, for the husbandmen not only refuse the pro- 
phets' demands, but maltreat and murder the owner's 
agents. The refusal of God to punish his husbandmen 
increases their bitterness, until they are ready to kill the 
Proprietor's son and heir. They know they have no 



68 

moral right to tlie vineyard; they know they are antag- 
onizing rightful authority; they know they intend to 
kill him who will heir the property. In a word, it is 
wrong endeavoring to overpower right; injustice throt- 
ling justice. If there is any sanction in moral law, the 
husbandmen must be destroyed. The moral sense of 
Jesus' hearers compels them to see the fitness of pen- 
alty, for they say, "He will miserably destroy those mis- 
erable men, and will let out the vineyard unto other 
husbandmen who will render him the fruits in their sea- 
sons" (Matt. 21 : 43, 45). But penalty was not inflicted. 
Instead of the husbandmen's death, the heir died. He 
had the right to punish them; he had the power to exe- 
cute the penalty ; but he waived the right and restrained 
his power, and allowed the wicked seemingly to tri- 
umph. Wrong seemed victorious. It would have been 
so in fact, if the Son had not foreseen that his return to 
life and glorious elevation would convince his enemies 
that he had voluntarily died in their stead, and so soften 
their enmity and awaken their love. Historically the 
death of Jesus was literally in the place of the death of 
the Jewish rulers. 

The significance of Jesus' death may aiso be gotten 
from the words: 'Tor the Son of man came not to be 
ministered to, but to minister and to give his life a ran- 
som for many" (Matt. 20: 28, cf. Mk. 10: 45). The word 
'came' suggests that death was part of his messianic 
mission ; the word 'give' shows that his death was vol- 
untary; the word 'ransom' indicates that his life served 
as the price for which the many were rescued. Ransom 



69 

may imply the idea of substitution, but not in the strict- 
est sense; it does indicate equivalence in value, else the 
release of many could not have been procured. 

The notion of substitution is more directly ex- 
pressed by the preposition 'for' i anti i. This preposition 
is the only one in the Greek language that can unmis- 
takably give the idea that one person or thing is sub- 
stituted for another person or thing. For example. 
Archaelaus ruled over Judea 'instead oi' his father He- 
rod (Matt. 2 : 22) ; a father does not give his child a ser- 
pent "instead of a fish ( L. 1 1 : 1 1). Yet, the preposition 
does not necessarily mean 'instead of," for it cannot be 
supposed that the lost eye can be replaced by the eye of 
the assailant (^latt. 5 : 38 1. The offender must suffer a 
loss equivalent to that stiffered by the person wronged. 
The idea of equivalence, then, is unmistakably present 
in both the words 'ransom' and 'for.' The language 
suggested to Jesus' hearers the idea of vicarious suf- 
fering, for they had been taught by centuries oi sacrih- 
cial ritual that the victim bore penalties which the of- 
ferer deser\-ed. The doctrine of substitution was cur- 
rent in Jewish theology. 

It is hardly fair to press the figure so far as to ask. 
To whom was the ransom given? or. From whom or 
what were the many ransomed? If the second question 
seems pertinent, it may be replied, that it was a com- 
mon notion that men are slaves to sin, and so Jesus may 
have had in mind the idea of slavery to sin. This well 
accords with the significance of his name, for it was be- 
cause he would save from sin that he was called Jesus. 



The second passage that gives the value of Christ's 
death is the account of the Last Supper. Here the pre- 
positions used seem to weaken the inference derived 
from the study of 'for' in Matthew 20: 28, for both Mark 
and Luke use a preposition which primarily means 'for 
the advantage of,' and secondarily 'instead of (Phile- 
mon 13), and Matthew uses a still more colorless pre- 
position, which simply afhrms that Jesus' death 'con- 
cerns' many, and gives no intimation whatever as to 
how the advantage is secured. There are, however, two 
expressions that aid to determine the purpose of our 
Lord's sufferings. 

Matthew alone states that the advantage of Christ's 
blood is the remission of sins (26: 28). Evidently Jesus 
gave sacrificial value to his death, else he would not 
have joined so closely the terms 'blood' and 'forgive- 
ness of sin.' Even if his disciples did not at the time see 
the meaning of his words, subsequently they had suffi- 
cient warrant for taking them as the guarantee of the 
correctness of their preaching (r Pet. i : i8f.; Gal. i : 4, 
2: 20; Rom. 4: 25; I Cor. 15: 3; Tit. 2: 14; i Tim. 2:6). 
In accordance with Christ's mission to forgive sins and 
his express declaration that his life is given as a ransom 
is the teaching, that his death serves as an atonement 
on account of which men's sins are forgiven. The blood 
of Christ is the objective condition upon which it is 
possible for God to forgive sin. 

Luke gives a slightly dififerent significance to Jesus' 
death in the words: "This cup is the new covenant in 
my blood, which is shed for you" (22: 20). The adjec- 



71 

tive 'new' at once suggests contrast with the old, and 
we at once think of Jeremiah's promise: ''Behold, 
the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house 
of Judah. . . .1 will put my law in their inward parts, 
and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and 
they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more 
every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, 
saying, 'Know Jehovah: for they shall all know me, 
from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith 
Jehovah : for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will re- 
member their sin no more" (31 : 31-34). God's pledge 
in this new covenant is to remove the sins of the people, 
so that there will be no barrier obstructing loving in- 
timacy and spontaneous obedience. 

The qualifying phrase 'in my blood' shows that 
there are points of contact between the new covenant 
and the old, for the old had been ratified by the shed- 
ding of blood (Ex. 24: i-ii). The shed blood of the 
sacrifices at Sinai atoned for the people's sins and the 
sprinkling of it upon the congregation was their ratifi- 
cation of the covenant. The blood of the old covenant 
symbolized atonement and ratification. So Jesus' blood 
was shed to effect atonement and also to ratify the 
new covenant by whose terms God forgives man's ini- 
quities and works in him moral renewal (L. 22: 20, cf. 
Jer. 31:31-34). 

After the resurrection, Jesus declared that his death 
was the consummation of the Old Testament prepara- 



72 

tion, and that its design was to remove the guilt of sin 
(L.24:47). 

4). Heavenly Activity. The Vicegerent's activ- 
ity did not cease with his removal from earth by vio- 
lence. He knew that he would rise to meet his dis- 
ciples for further instruction (Matt. 26:32), and that 
glory necessarily awaited him after suffering (L. 24: 
26). The cross did not destroy, but was the beginning- 
of a continuous manifestation of Jesus' messianic power 
(Matt. 26:64). Because of authority granted him in 
his exaltation, he personally directs the affairs of his 
subjects and accompanies them all the days (Matt. 28: 
20). 

SUBJECTS OF THE KINGDOM. 

The task of Jesus was to bring men into submission 
to the King, that God's will may be done on earth as it 
is done in heaven. To do this he had to furnish motives 
sufficiently strong to induce the disobedient and rebel- 
lious to submit their wills to the will of the Father. 
Jesus, therefore, appealed to man's sense of worth and 
to his consciousness of sin. 

I. Worth OF Man. The constitution of man pro- 
claims his value. He is dual in nature. A study of the 
terms 'body,' 'soul,' 'flesh' and 'spirit' will make this ap- 
parent. 'Flesh,' 'fiesh and blood' and 'body' describe 
man on his material side, but they are not quite synony- 
mous. 'Flesh' is the perishable sensuous nature that 
distinguishes men from the non-material beings of the 
spirit-world (L. 24:37-39; Matt. 24:22). 'Flesh and 
blood' designates man's creaturely weakness in. contrast 



with the supersensuous and divine. Jesus pointedly 
brought out the contrast in reply to Peter's confession. 
"Flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but my Father 
who is in heaven." 'Body' is the comprehensive term 
for man's physical organism, whether it be dead or 
alive; but the body can fulfil its functions only when 
animated. The presence of 'the spirit' in the body 
makes it alive. \\'hen Jesus yielded up his spirit death 
came (Matt. 2'j\ 50), and when the spirit returned to the 
dead daughter of Jairus, she lived (L. 8: 50). 

But it must be noted that the body is said to be 
kept alive by a somewhat called 'the soul.' This living 
body prolongs its existence by food (]^Iatt. 6:25): it 
may be killed by the violence of men. but the animating 
soul is beyond their power to injure (^Nlatt. 10: 28). The 
soul continues its existence apart from the body. 

The query arises, \Miat is the relation between soul 
and spirit? Are they exactly synonymous, or are they 
distinct elements in the non-material constituent of hu- 
man nature? Spirit is the true antithesis of flesh, and 
denotes man as a person capable of forming resolutions 
and eager to effect his purposes. For example, the dis- 
ciples had earnestly protested against Jesus' prediction 
that they would forsake him in the hour of trial, and had 
vehemently afhrmed their determination to die with 
him, if need be: but he knew the testing would be too 
severe for them. He commended their resolution, but 
told them that they lacked the strength to carry it into 
effect. "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is 
weak.'-' Again, spirit is conceived as distinct from the 



74 

physical sense, for Jesus 'in his spirit,' and not by sight 
or hearing, perceived the reasoning of the scribes, (Mk. 
2:8). It also denotes that in man which experiences 
emotion. The hardened unbelief of Pharisees touched 
Jesus so deeply that he sighed 'in his spirit' (Mk. 8: 12). 
Spirit, then, is practically synonymous with our expres- 
sion 'the higher nature,' in contrast with flesh, 'the 
lower nature.' 

The 'soul' is that which makes men persons, for 
dead bodies have none of the marks of personalty. It is 
the soul or person that exists beyond the grave. In 
earthly life the body is the medium through which the 
soul or person acts. The expression 'body and soul,' 
then, designates man in his personal relation to his fel- 
lows. 

That soul and person are practically identical may 
be inferred from the soliloquy 01 the Rich Fool (L. 12: 
19). He is talking to himself when he is addressing his 
soul. Substitute the word self for soul, and read: "I 
will say to myself. Self, thou hast many goods laid up 
for many years; take thine ease; eat, drink, be merry." 
This brings out the supreme selfishness of the Fool; 
and this is one of the points intended by Jesus in speak- 
ing the parable. True, the word souls is used in the 
parable in the sense of animal life which ceases at death; 
but the folly of the rich farmer consisted in supposing 
that self had to do with earthly life only, when in fact he 
had a life independent of and superior to animal exist- 
ence. Jesus taught by this parable that man is a con- 
scious person in two-fold sphere of life. 



That personality inheres in the soul may be in- 
ferred also from the fact, that it is the constituent part of 
man's nature that experiences sorrow and love. Jesus' 
FOul was exceedingly sorrowful (^latt. 26: 38). The 
highest duty of man is to love God with all the heart, 
with all the soul, and with all the mind (^latt. 22: 37). 
It is the person that sorrows and loves. 

Spirit and soul, then, are not exactly synonymous, 
nor are they entirely distinct; they constantly cross each 
other, so to speak. Both denote man's immateriality, 
but from different points of view, ^lan is spirit, be- 
cause he is allied with spiritual beings, especially with 
Him who is Spirit: he is a soul, because he has sensa- 
tions and experiences that belong to life; he is a human 
soul, because he has the mysterious deeps of personal- 
ity; he is an immortal soul, because experiences of per- 
sonal moral life outlast the body. 

Jesus interpreted this inarticulate speech of the hu- 
man constitution, and as authoritative teacher assured 
men that they have relations with the invisible world. 
Angelic beings rejoice in their welfare (L. 15: 10). It 
is the unseen world alone that holds treasures that can 
fitly reward man's noblest endeavor (Alatt. 6: 19.-21). 
^loreover. the fact that man has the high privilege of 
becoming like God in character is evidence of Jesus' 
high estimate of human worth, for nothing can con- 
ceivablv be more valuable than God's perfections (^latt. 

Jesus assumed that man is free to accept or reject 
him as the bearer oi salvation (L. 13; 34) and to direct 



76 

his energies to enter the narrow gate to eternal Hfe 
(Matt. 7: 14), and that he is therefore responsible (L. 
12: 57). The awful prerogative of choice and the pos- 
sible preservation of the true moral self with God were 
motives to which Jesus appealed in order to make men 
appreciate their dignity. 

Jesus taught that God is interested, not merely in 
humanity as a whole, but in every individual however 
weak and insignificant. The one erring sheep engross- 
es the shepherd's attention more than the entire flock 
safely folded (Matt. 18: 12-14). So valuable is one of 
the little ones that believe, that sure and disgraceful 
death cannot measure the doom awaiting those who 
cause him to stumble (Matt. 18: 6). The pointed ques- 
tions. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world 
and forfeit his soul? Or what is a man to give in ex- 
change for his soul? show Christ's estimate of man. In 
his view a man outweighs the kingdoms of the world 
and the glory of them, for the immortal self is borne by 
angels to enjoy the companionship of the blessed, or 
suffers a descent so sad and awful as to be described by 
the tender Jesus as a place of tormentmg flame and un- 
quenchable thirst (L. 16: 19-23). 

On the subject of man's value, as on every subject, 
Christ's activity illustrated and emphasized his words. 
He not only said that men were dear to him, but he also 
acted as if they were. He did not scorn the people, be- 
cause they know not the law, but "was moved with 
compassion for them, because they were harassed, and 
scattered, as sheep having no shepherd." He delighted 



77 

to come into closest intimacy with political and social 
outcasts (L. 15: 1-32). In other words, he treated the 
poor, the ignorant, the depraved as though they were 
worth something, and they responded to his estimate 
and became conscious of possessing moral value. The 
Physician healed them by making them feel the joy of 
self-respect, for self-respect saves from degradation and 
furnishes a worthy ideal. In imagination the self-re- 
specting man sees the ideally possible and the effort to 
become like his idealized self is abandonment of the 
actual self. It is no wonder that fishermen and publi- 
cans gladly left all to follow One who had given them 
some idea of their worth ; no wonder that women of the 
city w^ere lifted from lives of public shame, when they 
discovered One who invited them to associate with him 
in purity. 

Christ's conduct naturally alienated the socially re- 
spectable and stirred them to hostility; but he cared 
nothing for conventional customs of society, nor for 
theological opinions sanctioned by generations of re- 
ligious teachers, if by disregarding them he could put 
man in his rightful place. He therefore seemed to de- 
light to heal on Sabbath days, for in this way he most 
effectively taught that man is of more importance than 
any national institution however hallowed by centuries 
of observance and sanctioned by divine commandment. 
The startling words, "The sabbath was made for man, 
and not man for the sabbath" (]\Ik. 2: 2^), put the hum- 
blest Jew above the day that was thought to have limi- 
ted God's creative work, and for violation of whose 



78 

sanctity death was inflicted. Jesus' apparent deprecia- 
tion of the sabbath occasioned plots to kill him, for his 
enemies did not perceive that instead of belittling their 
holy day he was exalting man. His death did not si- 
lence his testimony, for more eloquently than words the 
crucifixion proclaims Christ's estimate of man. He 
valued men more than he valued his life. The cross re- 
mains a constant and convincing witness of man's 
worth. 

No one can visit the manger and see Jesus in in- 
fant weakness, or walk the shores of Galilee's lake and 
hear his virile speech and see his mighty deeds, or stand 
before the cross and see his marvellous death, without 
feeling that the frail human body is unspeakably pre- 
cious. The life Christ lived as the incarnate Son of God 
makes every human life assume the dignity of a son of 
God. 

2. Man's Condition. In spite of man's intelli- 
gence and will and the priceless value of the soul, he 
misuses the former and is in danger of losing the latter. 
His condition is not that which his constitution de- 
clares to be his ideal. His moral judgment testifies that 
he feels the pressure of God's will urging him to moral 
decisions, and his experience testifies that his own will 
resists the recognizable divine pressure. This exper- 
ience Jesus interpreted, when he taught that the will of 
God must be the standard of conduct and that no one 
reaches the standard. No adequate idea of goodness 
can be found apart from God, and the search after good 
is futile, unless the moral perfections of God are more 



79 

highly prized than earthly riches however great (Alk. 
lo: 1 8). The young ruler was in the grip of a power 
stronger than himself, else he would have won that for 
which he seemed so eager to attain. 

Jesus did not account for the origin of this moral 
impotence. He talked about men as they are, not as 
they were in some distant past. He assumed that every 
man can see that his own personal history and the his- 
tory of the race testify to moral fault; he assumed too 
that ordinary insight leads to the conviction that this 
uniform phenomenon points to a normal tendency ly- 
mg back of and determining the fact. In brief, sin be- 
longs to man's being, and is therefore universal. 

The best men whom Jesus met had to repent. 
Those who showed docility and comparative blameless- 
ness by attaching themselves to him are described as 
debtors owing the enormous sum of ten thousand tal- 
ents, and the most faithful servants are still unprofitable 
servants (L. 17: 7-10). 

Jesus did not define the nature of sin. but indirect 
statements warrant the following conclusions. Sin is 
an incident in each man's life. Its origin and history 
can be traced, for it is the conscious act of a person. 
Every man knows when, where and why he sinned. But 
the incidental character of a sinful act does not lessen 
its enormity. An isolated transgression entails endur- 
ing consequences. "I say to you, that every idle word 
that men shall speak they will give account of it in the 
day of judgment" (Matt. 12: 36). ''Whoever causes one 
of these little ones that believe in me to stumble, it is 



80 

profitable for him that a great millstone should be 
hanged about his neck, and he should be sunk in the 
depths of the sea" (Matt. i8: 6). The permanency of the 
effect of a single misdeed arises from the nature of per- 
sonality. The will is effected by every choice; it gains 
character in the act of choosing. Repeated decisions 
for evil make it impossible to choose anything but evil. 
"Blood of vipers! Hov^ can ye, being evil, speak good 
things? For out of the abundance of the heart the 
mouth speaks" (Matt. 12: 34). 

While conceivably every child may be born in a 
state of moral equilibrium, so that a good choice may 
be as probable as a bad one, Jesus gave no hint that he 
held such a theory. He nowhere suggests that a person 
determines whether he will sin or not. It is true that 
will determines character, but it is equally true that the 
will has a moral quality derived from the nature of the 
person that wills. Man is a sinner before he sins. Acts 
of sin are sinful, because they can be traced back to a 
sinful 'disposition. Angry feelings and lustful looks 
need not find expression in murder and adultery to give 
them ethical values. Just as certainly as corrupt fruit 
indicates corrupt trees, so certainly do misdeeds prove 
corrupt natures. The heart, the centre of emotional 
and volitional activities, is vitiated. "From within, out 
of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, 
thefts, murders, adulteries, covetousnesses, wicked- 
nesses, deceit, wantonness, an evil eye, blasphemy, 
pride, folly: all these evil things proceed from within, 
and defile the man" (Mk. 7: 21-23). 



81 

The sinfulness antecedent to the sinful act is not a 
misfortune, for it begets guilt; nor is it a mastering fate 
overpowering the sinner as a victim, for in spite of his 
helplessness he knows that he sinned, and is therefore 
responsible. An awakened conscience does not distin- 
guish between the act and the state. It cries, "God be 
merciful to me the sinner. ' 

The sinner is not isolated in his sin. He is en- 
meshed in the moral impotency of the race. The babe 
begins life with a history; the combined forces of its an- 
cestry converge in the helpless infant. Its nature is de- 
termined by choices not its own; it inherits results of 
decisions in which it had no conscious part. Jesus rec- 
ognized the power of heredity to master men, and did 
not hesitate to hold his own generation punishable for 
the accummulated guilt of all the past. "Do ye fill up 
the measure of your fathers : Serpents ! Brood of vipers ! 
How are ye to escape the judgment of hell? There- 
fore, behold, I send to you prophets, and wise men, and 
scribes ; some of them ye will kill and crucify, and some 
of them ye will scourge in your synagogues, and perse- 
cute from city to city; that on you may come all the 
righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of 
righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Bar- 
achiah, whom ye killed between the temple and the al- 
tar. \'erily I say to you. All these things shall come on 
this generation'' (]\Iatt. 23: 33-36). He also assumed 
that the same generation had the power to overcome 
the tyranny of heredity, if it had been so disposed. It 
was free to escape impending doom. ''O Jerusalem, 



82 

Jerusalem, that killest the prophets, and stonest those 
who are sent to her; how often did I wish to gather thy 
children together, as a hen gathers her chickens under 
her wings, and ye would not" (Matt. 23: 37). 

Jesus did not solve the problem involved, but sim- 
ply accepted the facts insisted upon six centuries be- 
fore, when Ezekiel had to quiet the faithless and pessi- 
mistic cry of a despairing people, "The fathers have 
eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on 
edge," by the counter truth, "Behold, all souls are mine; 
as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is 
mine ; the soul that sins it shall die." The statements of 
both Ezekiel and Jesus are illustrated in the facts, that 
modern biological science emphasizes the power of 
heredity and that no sane man puts his sin to his fath- 
er's account. Personality overrides heredity in the 
sphere of morals. The soul that sins it shall die. 

It is noteworthy that man's moral helplessness ih 
afhrmed by the Sinless One. Only he who knew no sin 
could estimate sin aright. The estimate is so true to 
fact, so revolting to human pride, so declarative of 
God's redeeming love, that thoughtful men regard the 
doctrine of original sin the strongest evidence of the di- 
vine character of the religious system that holds it. 

While Jesus' judgment of men is severe, it is also 
delicate and discriminating. He knew that man is re- 
deemable, for his judgment protests against wrong, his 
intellect assents to truth, his sentiments respond to the 
morally beautiful. He is not as bad as he can be. Jesus 
saw admirable traits in those whom he called evil. 'Tf 



B3 

ye, then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to 
your children, how much more will your Father who is 
in heaven give good things to those who ask him" 
(Alatt. 7: 11). The good Samaritan, a semi-heathen, 
had qualities worthy of imitation (L. 10: 25-37). The 
strict morality of the rich young ruler commanded the 
admiration of Jesus (]\Ik. 10:21). The hypocritical 
Pharisees had power to judge what was right (L. 12: 
57). Among men. then, Christ recognized differences 
of character and degrees of guilt. \'arying circum- 
stances determine degTees of responsibility in conduct. 
Children have not the glaring faults of adults and are 
less blameworthy (I\Iatt. 18: 3. 4): ignorance mitigates 
guilt, for "he that knew not, and did things worthy of 
stripes, will be beaten with few" (L. 12:47, 4^^ cf. 2'i^: 
34) ; incomplete obduracy is not unpardonable, for it 
arises from misunderstanding of the person and work 
of the Son of man (Matt. 12: 32); complete obduracy 
involves unpardonable guilt, for men with conscience 
so perverted as not to distinguish Satanic agency from 
divine power are incapable of forming preferences in 
the moral sphere, and therefore have no evil to shun, 
nor good to choose (Mk. 3 : 29). 

In spite of excellencies in human nature, it lacks 
one thing, viz. recuperative power to return to God in 
purity. Guilty all men are, and penalty follows guilt, 
but because there are degrees of guilt, there are degrees 
of punishment (L. 12:48; Matt. 1 1 : 20-24V There is 
something inexpressibly sad in hearing him who said, 
"Come to me all ve that labor and are heavv laden, and 



I will give you rest," say also, "Depart from me, ac- 
cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and 
his angels." It seems incongruous to hear him who re- 
vealed God's love for lost men speak again and again 
of a worm that dies not and of a fire that is not 
quenched. It seems impossible that the same Teacher 
should have spoken such contradictory words concern- 
ing man. How can man be worth so much, if his doom 
is so awful? But the fate of guilty man is but the ob- 
verse of his worth. Just because he is destined for god- 
likeness, to miss his destiny is to experience loss inade- 
quately expressed by any human analogy. 

The three truths Jesus brought to m-an to induce 
him to yield to God as the Father-King are, first, man is 
zvorth redeeming; second, he needs a redeemer; third, 
his redemption is possible. 

3. Conditions of Entrance. Since men have 
transgressed God's will and are not members of the 
kingdom, they must become members by submission to 
the King's requirements. As Vicegerent Jesus re- 
quired the following conditions : 

I.) Repentance. Repentance is not an act of pen- 
ance, nor a gift of alms, nor a ritual observance, but a 
new view of one's moral condition. It is a confession 
of poverty needing enrichment (Matt. 5: 3-6), of sick- 
ness needing healing (Mk. 2: 17), of weariness needing 
rest (Matt. 11 : 28-30), of ruin needing recovery (L. 19: 
10), of sinfulness needing pardon (L. 5:32; 18: 13) 
Normally this view of self as lost occasions sorrow that 
impels to changed conduct (Matt. 21: 29; L. 15: 2of.). 



85 

This new conduct gives repentance its value, for sor- 
row may be so intense as to lead to frenzy of remorse, 
and consequently to suicide ; but suicide has no saving 
virtue. Judas had obtained a new view of his act of 
treachery and had experienced new feeling, but his con- 
duct remained unchanged. He rushed from one crimi- 
nal act to another, from betrayal of innocent blood to 
self-murder. He was a criminal to the last. Deep re- 
morse, then, is no guarantee of genuine repentance. 
The undutiful son must repent (changed feeling) and 
go. The going shows the true relation to the father. 
Action, not thinking nor feeling, is the test of moral 
worth (]\Iatt. 21 : 31). 

This actual turning about is what is technically 
called conversion. It is wholly the act of the penitent. 
Conversion is not a synonym for regeneration: the 
former is man's act, the latter God's. The command is. 
Turn ye, as if the whole responsibility for changed con- 
duct rested with the sinner. While conversion is the 
initial act that introduces man into the kingdom of God 
(Matt. 18: 3), the consequences of the initial act may 
not be enduring, for subsequent conduct may be un- 
worthy. That is. conversion is not an act done once for 
all. A man has need of conversion as often as he needs 
to change his conduct (L. 22: 32). 

2.) Faith. In the preaching of John the Baptist 
repentance alone is demanded, and faith taken for 
granted, because the people were predisposed to be- 
lieve in the good news of the kingdom's approach. But 
new conditions confronted lesus. He had to bear the 



86 



burden of John's apparent failure. As the Baptist's 
ministry progressed it became more and more evident 
that he was merely a religious zealot, commending him- 
self to the consciences of men aspiring for moral purity, 
but alienating shallow officials who wrangle about au- 
thority (John i: 19, 24). The self-righteous pharisees 
at first welcomed his message, but subsequently became 
indififerent ; and his stern uncompromising denuncia- 
tion of Herod's wickedness brought him to the dun- 
geon and to death. 

If the strong heroic Herald could misconceive the 
nature of the kingdom and be tempted to doubt the 
identity of Jesus with the Messiah, it is easy to imagine 
that the people fancied themselves misled by the prom- 
ise of the nearness of the kingdom. They were ready 
to believe that John had spoken unadvisedly. Jesus, 
then, must add to John's message, "Repent, for the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand," the demand, "Believe 
in the gospel." In effect, Christ said, 'Jo^i^ preached 
repentance, and I repeat his message ; he told you of the 
kingdom's nearness, I bring the same good news ; do 
not despond because of its delay ; be not dismayed by 
ecclesiastical indifference and oppO'sition ; in spite of all 
discouragements believe in the gospel.' He had to 
speak so, for he could not have persuaded his hearers 
to repent until he had persuaded them to regain their 
confidence in the certainty of the kingdom's approach. 
Hence, in his early preaching the gospel is the object of 
faith (Mk. i: 15). As he advanced in his ministry he 



87 



more distinctly required faith in himself as the condi- 
tion of receiving the saving benefits of the kingdom. 

Faith in Jesus was demonstrated by attachment to 
him as disciples follow a teacher. Such intimacy 
showed prior repentance, for Jesus identified himself 
with the righteousness he required and which he be- 
stowed (]\Iatt. 5: 10. II). To follow Christ as the em- 
bodiment of righteousness implied abandonment of un- 
righteous living and desire for purity. 

Faith and repentance are inter-related as cause and 
effect, for repentance is impossible unless the mind ap- 
prehends and accepts truths that instrumentally pro- 
duce changed conduct. They are both illustrated in the 
childlike attitude of the penitent. Entrance into the 
kingdom is impossible to one who thinks his antecedent 
history commends him to God or debars him from His 
favor. Penitents must be trustfully receptive, and 
take the kingdom as a gift, as children receive gifts 
from parents, without questioning their fitness or unfit- 
ness to receive (]Mk. 10: 15). The disciple must by faith 
and repentance begin life anew as a child and must have 
a child's feeling of dependence. 

Jesus did not define faith, but its nature may be in- 
ferred from the usage of the word. It may mean an in- 
tellectual assent based on demonstration (^Ik. 15: 32), 
but Jesus did not use it in this sense. It may mean be- 
lief in the truthfulness of a report (Mk. 16: 13. 15"). and 
it may mean a relying trust on a person by virtue of his 
power or readiness to help. The last meaning is the 



88 



usual one in the gospels; and the object of confidence is 
Jesus and God. 

Jesus usually demanded faith as the condition of 
receiving his healing benefits, but not always, for some- 
times he healed to awaken faith or to exhibit his saving 
grace. Faith is ever the indispens'able prerequisite for 
the forgiveness of sins, since it cannot be imagined that 
God can ease the conscience, unless the human soul 
feels its sin and longs for pardon (L. 5 : 20; 7: 50). Faith 
conditioned ability to work miracles (Matt. 17: 20; 21 : 
21 ; Mk. II : 22; L. 17: 6), since miracle-working was the 
means of establishing the kingdom and was given to 
those who shared the purpose of the Vicegerent. No 
one that lacks confidence in God or Christ can possibly 
be effective agents in carrying lorward work along the 
line of God's redemptive purposes as revealed in Jesus. 

3.) Self-Renunciation. Having surrendered 
himself by faith into the keeping of the King, the peni- 
tent seeks first the righteousness of the kingdom and 
regards temporal good of secondary importance (Matt. 
6:33). The highest expression of self-surrender is 
readiness to suffer shameful death for the sake of Christ, 
the King's Vicegerent (Mk. 8:34). Of course, all 
other sacrifices are included in this supreme act of self- 
denial. If needful, the follower of Jesus gives his riches 
to the poor (Mk. 10: 21), severs home ties (L. 14: 26) 
and mutilates his body (Mk. 9: 43f.), in order to express 
his loyalty and show appreciation of the supreme good 
experienced in serving him. In the estimation of those 



89 

most competent to judge, the kingdom is worth more 
than what its recipient can give (Matt. 13: 45, 46). 

Jesus thus emphatically taught that whatever hind- 
ered single-hearted service of God disqualified for citi- 
zenship in the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 6: 24). 

4. Hindrances to Entrance. Since the condi- 
tions are so exacting, not all those invited enter. Some 
hearers have no receptivity whatever for the truth, for 
their moral nature has been so hardened by immoral 
practices or by indifference to moral obligations, that 
it offers no place for the truth to take root (Matt. 13: 
4f.) ; others are preoccupied with legitimate business 
cares of life and are so engrossed therein that they re- 
gard the gospel message as of comparatively little value 
(L. 14: 15-24); others are chained by conservatism and. 
cannot break away from the past which has given so 
much good, so that they cannot appreciate the new 
good offered them in the gospel (L. 5 : 39) ; others can- 
not see the greater value of the kingdom, and are there- 
fore barred from its benefits (Mk. 10: 23; L. 6: 24); and 
others are proud, haughty and worldly wise, and so will 
not complv with conditions that humiliate (Matt. 11: 

25)- 

Jesiis did not mean that the busy, the conservative, 
the wise and the rich were shut out from the kingdom, 
because they were busy, conservative, wise and rich, for 
some of each class were among his followers, but he 
simply stated facts as he saw them in human society. 
Yet the fact is, that the great majority that followed 
Christ were the more readv to follow, because thev were 



90 

not gripped by these selfish considerations. In explain- 
ing the way in which the kingdom is received Jesus an- 
nounced the axiomatic principle that germination is 
conditioned by the character of the soil (Matt. 13 : 4-23). 
5. Aids to Entrance. The conditions of en- 
trance are so stringent, that men seem certainly ex- 
cluded (Mk. 10: 26). It would be so, if it were not for 
the omnipotence of God. No need for despair as long 
as God is on his throne (Mk. 10: 27). Here Jesus says 
that there is a power stronger than pride or wealth or 
conservatism, and that man can by divine aid break 
from the past and begin life anew. Elsewhere also he 
suggests that divine agency effects a change in man's 
conduct and perceptions (M'att. 11 : 27; 13: 11 ; 16: 17). 
Christ did not emphasize the necessity of divine aid, be- 
cause he was intent on teaching what man must and 
can do. He insisted that failure to enter must be at- 
tributed to man, not to God. Nowhere does he explain 
how God works in man to enable him to comply with 
conditions so humiliating to pride and self-sufificiency, 
nor does he harmonize the divine activity with man's 
freedom of choice. He assumed that both were true, 
and that neither makes the other unnecessary or in- 
operative. 



LAWS OF THE KINGDOMS. 



LAWS :? THE KIXGDOMS. 

The subjects of the kingdom are ideally portrayed 
in the Beatitudes ( Matt. 5 : 3-10). The picture is a con- 
trast to that which Jewish expectation painted. The 
Jews thought that wealth was prima facie evidence of 
God's favor, and therefore supposed that the rich were 
surely heirs of the messianic kingdom (Matt. 19: 25); 
but Jesus said that it belongs exclusively to the poor, — 
to those who think themselves poor, and are therefore 
not haughty and proud. "Blessed are the poor in spirit: 
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." ^len make wrong 
inferences from the fact of pain and sorrow, for they 
think these come because of divine displeasure: but 
Jesus taught that moiuTiers were blessed, since their 
sense of loss and want prepare them for comforts. 
"Blessed tliey that mourn : for they shall be comforted." 
Earthly kingdoms are usually secured by strife and ttu"- 
bulency. and naturally the Jews fancied that they must 
bring in the Messiah's reign by resenting heathen usur- 
pation and by plotting rebellion: but Christ's subjects 
must not be resentful nor quarrelsome nor turbulent, but 
patient under abuse.if they wish to establish his kingdom 
upon the earth. "Blessed the meek: for they shall in- 
herit the earth." In the kingdoms of the world the chief 
aspiration is to satisf}- bodily appetites, but the citizens 

93 



94 

of the kingdom of heaven have a painful longing for 
righteousness that supplants the desire for food and 
drink. "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after 
righteousness; for they shall be filled." The members 
of the kingdom exhibit their righteousness in their at- 
titude towards fellow members and towards their King. 
To their fellows they are sympathetic, kind and helpful ; 
to their King they are sincerely loyal, so that they have 
access to the royal presence as favorites of the court. 
''Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God. 
They value so much the honor and joy of intimacy with 
their King, that they wish others to experience like joy, 
and so strive to remove disloyalty from quarrelsome 
subjects, that they may be fitted to see their Sovereign's 
face like trusted attendants. As rewards for such zeal- 
ous endeavor the peacemaker becomes not only a fa- 
vorite at court, but is adopted into the royal family. 
"Blessed the peacemakers; for they shall be called sons 
of God." The loyal subjects of the kingdom of heaven 
love their righteous character so much that they main- 
tain it in spite of persecution, and experience joy in suf- 
fering for its sake. "Blessed are they who have been 
persecuted for righteousness' sake; for theirs is the 
kingdorri of heaven." 

In brief, the sole aim of the members of the mes- 
sianic kingdom is to be as loyally submissive to God's 
will as the angels in heaven (Maitt. 6: lo). 

Actually, however, the members of the kingdom 
are below the ideal Jesus set for them, for there are difh- 
culties in the way of devoted service. The weakness of 



95 

the flesh (]\Iatt. 26:41), the world with its abounding 
sin (]^Iatt. 24: 12). persecution by feUowmen (^latt. 10: 
21, 22; L. 6:22: 12: 10, iij and kindred (Matt. 10:21, 
22: L. 12: 49-53) and the antagonism of the Devil (L. 
22: 3, 31 ) hinder the realization of the character de- 
manded by the King. In consecjuence of such opposi- 
tion, the newly enrolled citizens are tempted to re- 
nounce allegiance, or to compromise with the lower 
ethical standards of the world. Therefore, laws must 
be enacted to preserve the high moral character of the 
kingdom and to stimulate loyalty by appealing to man's 
natural love of reward and fear of punishment. 

The two fundamental laws are. Seek righteousness 
and Follow Christ. These are not two standards, but 
the same expressed in different terms. The two-fold 
expression for the same law arose from the historical 
unfolding of Christ's person. At first Jesus taught the 
demands of God, but later, when he was persecuted for 
his teaching, and it became evident that he was the em- 
bodiment of the righteousness which he demanded of 
others, it was possible to demand attachment to himself 
as the test of loyalty to God. 

I. CuLTIVATI^XT RiCxHTEOusxESS. The all-inclu- 
sive command is. Seek first the kingdom of God and 
his righteousness. That is. Strive to attain a character 
that will satisfy the demands of the King. Jesus defined 
this character both negatively and positively, for he had 
to bring it into relation with righteousness as generally 
understood by his hearers, in order to make them grasp 
its distinctive quality. The righteousness of the king- 



'9B 

(lorn must exceed that accepted by pharisaic teachers, 
for they are content with externals and neglect the mo- 
tives that give conduct its moral value. Jesus illustrat- 
ed his conception of right conduct by contrasting his 
demands with those enjoined by interpreters of the law. 
Pharisaic literalism is impossible in the kingdom, for 
there the angry feeling, the lustful look, the vehement 
word, the revengeful act, and narrowed love are forbid- 
den. The aim of every loyal citizen must be godlike- 
ness in forgiving love (Matt. 5: 21-48). Pharisaic for- 
malism is not tolerated by the King, for he abominates 
sham and parade; and he is so jealous of his own pre- 
rogative as Judge, that he will not allow his subjects to 
think the praise of men of more consequence than his 
verdict (6: 1-18). Pharisaic covetousness must be 
abandoned, for it creates false estimates and begets half- 
hearted service, and places mammon on the throne as a 
rival of God (6: 19-34). Pharisaic censoriousness must 
be shunned, for divine wisdom is needed to judge justly 
(7: 1-12). 

Jesus emphatically taught that external conduct is 
no criterion by which to judge of the righteousness God 
demands, when he said that it is possible for men to go 
before the Judge self-deceived, since they think that 
their works commend them to him who sees the heart 
(Matt. 7: 21-27; L. 16: 15). Righteousness of the sort 
God demands must issue from a heart filled with love 
for him and fellowmen. 

I.) Relation to God . God must be the object of 
supreme love (Matt. 22: 36), and the only one deemed 



'97 

worthy of devoted service (Matt. 6: 24: L. 16: 13). He 
cannot think so meanly of himseh' as to tolerate a rival 
for the affections of his subjects, nor can he be so in- 
different to the welfare of his citizens as to allow them 
to waste their energy in devotion to unworthy ends. 

Love of God finds its best expression in submissive 
trust in him for daily needs (^latt. 6: 25-32), for safety 
in times of danger i^Iatt. 24: 37-40), for ability to carry 
on work he has assigned (]^Iatt. 17: 20: 'Mk. 11 : 22-24), 
and for the blessings of the kingdom i L. 12 : 32 ). 

Jesus accepted the will of God as the only law of 
life for himself, and conditioned the kinship of men with 
himself on their acceptance of the same rule (^Ik. 3: 
35). He practised what he taught, for he depended on 
God's providence to supply him with food in the wilder- 
ness (^latt. 4: 4), and he calmly slept during the tem- 
pest, while experienced sailors were nerveless with ter- 
ror {'SLk. 4: 35ft.), and he fully expected the tree to 
wither in consequence of his anathema, because of his 
faith in God (,]Mk. 11:22). As supreme love for God 
begets the habit of trust in God, so trust is the condition 
of efficacious prayer (^Ik. 11 : 24). Prayer is answered, 
not because it is profound or elaborate or long or en- 
gaged in by many (Matt. 18: iQf.). but because the 
trustful one believes that the King is a Father read\ 
and willing and able to give the best conceivable gift 
(L. 11: 13). Loving submission will not ask anything 
to be done contrary to the Father's will (^lark 14: 36). 

Due regard for the King will determine the sub - 
ject's mode of approach to him. for worship is but the 



98 

expression in act of the worshipper's estimate of God. 
Rites are not appointed for their own sake, but as 
means to an end, and that end the worship of a trans- 
cendently holy Father, who sees the secrets of the heart. 
Forms of service, then, must be observed with sincerity 
(Matt. 6: 1-18) and in harmony with the state of the 
heart (Matt. 9: 14-17). The place of worship must be 
honored as a house of prayer (Mk. 11 : 17) and the day 
sacred to God must not be made a burden to man (Mk. 
2:27). Rites, places and days are nothing in them- 
selves, but means by which God may be honored. 

2.) Conduct Towards Fellowmen. Christian 
conduct is set forth in the all embracing command, 
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Mk. 12: 31). 
Jesus drew no hard and fast distinction between love to 
brethren and love to men, for all needy men are neigh- 
bors, yet it is natural that a bond peculiarly strong 
should unite those who have had similar experiences. 
So, for the sake of effectiveness, I will distinguish where 
Jesus did not. 

(a) Fellow Subjects. Since men become sub- 
jects of the kingdom by the forgiving grace of the 
King, the forgiven subjects must show like forgiving 
spirit towards ofifending brethren (Matt. 18: 21-35). 
Not only must they readily forgive, but must seek op- 
portunity to reconcile an ofTended brother. So import- 
ant is it to remove anger from the heart of another, that 
it must precede the most solemn act of worship (Matt. 
5:23,24). . ^ ^ 

Love of brethren will prevent censorious judgment 



'9'9 

and officious interference (Matt. 7: 1-5), boastful pride 
(L. 18: 9-14), strife for rank and titles (Matt. 23: 7-10), 
and usurpation of authority (Matt. 18: i-io; L. 9:46; 
22: 24). On the contrary, love will impel to render ser- 
vice to unlovely brothers even if it costs the life (Matt. 
20: 25-28; Mk. 9: 36; 10: 42-45 ; L. 22: 25-27). 

(b) Fellowmen. Love must not be limited to 
members of the kingdom. Those actively hostile are 
objects of God's love, and therefore ought to be recip- 
ients of the love of those who are cultivating godlike- 
ness of character (Matt. 5:43-46). Love is exhibited 
in refusal to resent injuries (Matt. 5 : 22) or to retaliate 
(Matt. 5: 38), and in being willing to suffer more than 
the abuses already endured (5: 39). .Of such worth are 
enemies that they must be borne to God's throne in 
prayer (5: 44). They are in darkness, and so ought to 
arouse the pitiful love of Christians, who persist in liv- 
ing godly lives in spite of persecution, in order to bear 
to them light and salvation (Matt. 5: 13-16). Disciples 
are heralds of the gospel message to all men, that men 
of all nations may become disciples (Matt. 28: 19). 

2. Following Christ. This is not a law in addi- 
tion to the general one of cultivating righteousness, but 
it makes the general concrete, and also raises christian 
ethics from the plane of mere duty to that of devotion 
to a person w4io deserves service. Jesus identified him- 
self with the righteousness he mediated. It is a matter 
of indifiference whether men are persecuted for his sake 
or for righteousness' sake (Matt. 5: 10-12). While, 
speaking generally, it is true that Jesus required love 



Lof 



100 

for the message he brought to men (Mk. 3: 31-35; Matt. 
21-29; L. 10: 38-40; II : 27, 28; 13: 26, 27), and that he 
did not emphasize attachment to himseh as condition of 
salvation until quite late in his ministry, yet it is note- 
worthy that he placed value on his words just because 
they were his words (Matt. 7: 24-27). He did not dis- 
tinguish his teaching from himself, as if a disciple might 
obey his teaching and reject his person; for as a matter 
of course attachment to his person preceded the hearing 
of his words. So high value does Christ put upon his 
person as the one through whom righteousness is se- 
cured, that he declares himself to be the standard of 
judgment for all men (Matt. 25:31-46). Fellowship 
with him must be preferred to bodily life (Mk. 8: 34f.). 

Jesus required more than obedience to his words 
and affection for himself. Since he was the Messiah 
and since death was part of his messianic work, his fol- 
lowers must commemorate by suitable memorial the 
fact that his body was broken and his blood shed for 
their benefit, and thus confess that his death has saving- 
significance for them (L. 22: 19, 20). 

While the disciples' relation to Jesus is the closest 
possible (Mk. 3: 35), they are still servants, ever ready 
to do his bidding (L. 12: 35-40), and ever mindful of 
their position as slaves who must claim no reward for 
service (L. 17: 5-10). Though this must be their 
thought of themselves in relation to their Master, he on 
the other hand values their service. He rewards ac- 
cording to his own sovereign will and the willingness 
of his servants (Matt. 20: 1-16), according to the in- 



101 

dustry and ingenuity and amount of service rendered 
(L. 19: 11-27). and according to the faithfulness and 
energy with which they employ their natural endow- 
ments in his service (]^Iatt. 25: 14-30). 

3. Privileges of the Subjects. In their earthly 
life subjects of the kingdom have both temporal and 
eternal benefits. The temporal are whatever is neces- 
sary for man's welfare, and they will be given as a mat- 
ter of course. They will come from the Father King 
as certainly as food is provided for birds and color 
given to flowers. Food and clothing are blessings not 
incompatible with the nature of the kingdom, and may 
be prayed for (Matt. 6: 11 :L. 11:3). But Jesus did not 
promise an abundance of earthly goods, for he taught 
that man's life does not consist in the abundance of his 
possessions (L. 12: 15). In contrast with the riches of 
the world, he urged the necessity of becoming rich to- 
wards God (L. 12: 21). 

The all-inclusive blessing of the kingdom is for- 
giveness of sin. The knowledge that God is not in con- 
flict with us brings a peace to the soul that is enjoyed 
in this life and gives assurance that it will be enjoyed 
eternally. In addition to the forgiveness of past sins, 
there is assurance that the ever recurring sins will be 
forgiven, if their remission is sincerely desired (L. 11: 
4; Matt. 18:35; Mk. 11:25). Possession of this cer- 
tainty is more to be desired than the world's wealth 
(]Mk. 8: 36) and more to be cherished than power over 
demons (L. 10: 18-20). The full realization of that for 



102 

which disciples strive will be gained in the age to come, 
when unalloyed joy will be theirs. 

It is not the privilege of all disciples to participate 
in the marriage feast (Matt. 22: 1-17). This is so, be- 
cause they fail to fulfill the requirements of the King. 
Reliance must not be placed on the initial act of repent- 
ance, but there must be earnest and life-long endeavor 
to do the bidding of God (Matt. 10: 22; 24: 13). The 
elect alone persevere, and perseverance characterizes 
the elect. They are seen to be elect, because they strive 
and watch and pray. Disciples need not be discouraged 
because of the severity of the struggle, for the fatherly 
love of God that inaugurated the life of discipleship will 
maintain it until his purposes are realized. The en- 
couragement is: "Fear not, little flock, for it is your 
Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom" (L. 
12: 32). That is, perseverance is a divine gift. 



HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM. 



HISTORY OF THE KIXGDOM. 

From what has been learned of the nature of the 
King, of the person and authority and mission of the 
Mcegerent, and of the character and duties of the sub- 
jects, the conclusion is unavoidable, that the kingdom 
of God is not an organization fashioned after the an- 
alogy of earth's political societies, and that its duration 
is not limited by time. It is inconceivable that God's 
rule can be defined by geographical boundaries or ex- 
pressed in precise political terminology. It is as uni- 
versal as man and as unending as character, and con- 
duct therein is spontaneous as personality. 

A definition of this ideal kingdom is: The king- 
dom of God is that society in which God is King, his 
will is the constitution, and citizens are obedient and 
loving persons. But nowhere does Jesus use the phrase 
'kingdom of God' in this ideal sense; he gives the 
name to imperfect realization of the ideal. Just because 
such a rule of God had to have a beginning in time and 
had to be subject to the laws of historical development, 
Jesus spoke of the kingdom in its beginning, develop- 
ment and consummation. 

I. Begixxixg. The kingdom of God in the sense 
it bears in the synoptics was future to John the Baptist, 
for he declared it was vet to come: but in the view of Jesus 

105 



106 

it was past, for he said it took its beginning in the min- 
istry of the Baptist (L. i6: i6; Matt, ii: ii, 12). Jesus, 
however, definitely excludes John from the kingdom, 
not because John lived too early in history, but because 
he understood not the nature of the Messiah. John had 
ample opportunity to be a member of the kingdom, be- 
cause it had come to men in the person of Jesus of Naz- 
areth. The kingdom of God was present when Jesus 
was working miracles in proof of its presence (Matt. 12 : 
28 ; L. 11: 20). That it could not be seen was no indica- 
tion that it had not come (L. 17: 21). The use of past 
and present tenses in speaking of the same thing is ex- 
plained by the fact, that, as a new divine force intro- 
duced into the world, the kingdom of God began with 
John's preaching and was continued through the 
agency of Jesus. If the attention is fixed on its incep- 
tion, the past tense is appropriate; if attention is direct- 
ed to its development as a process in history, the pres- 
ent tense is fitly used. Again, John's ministry could' 
inaugurate the kingdom, and yet John not be a mem- 
ber of the kingdom, because in history no hard and 
fast dividing line separates epochs. Cause and efifect 
are not disjoined by the historian's device of naming a 
date at which one period of development terminates 
and another begins. Since John was in the transition 
period between 'the law and the prophets' and the 'king- 
dom of heaven,' he can be said to be in either, accord- 
ing as it is wished to determine his relation to each. The 
Kingdom of heaven began in time, when Jesus of Naz- 
areth announced himself as God's Vicegerent upon 
earth, » 



107 

2. Development of the Kingdom. Since the 
kingdom began in time and has to do with men, it is 
subject to the vicissitudes of any organization that has 
origin and growth. It began insignificantly small, but 
it had within itself the promise and potency of greatness 
(Matt. 13: 31-33). Its extension will be slow, gradual 
and mysterious. It has the characteristics of anything 
that develops by the life principle enfolded within it 
(Mk. 4: 26-32). Beginning in Palestine, it is destined 
to extend throughout the world and perpetuate itself 
for all time (Matt. 5: 13, 14; 8: 11; 24: 14; 26: 13). 
While its growth is conditioned by the quality of its en- 
vironment (Matt. 13: 19-23) and by die operation of 
mysterious forces (Mk. 4: 26-29), yet its rapid spread is 
largely dependent on the zeal of its citizens (Matt. 6: 

9-i3;9:35-ii:i)- 

Because of the opposition of Satan and of the lack 
of responsiveness in men, there will be a commingling 
of good and bad subjects in the kingdom; and because 
men of the same purpose have not the same resolution 
to effect their purposes, there will be grades among the 
good. In order to establish the kingdom in its perfec- 
tion there must be separation of the loyal from the dis- 
loyal (Matt. 13:24-30, 4if., 47f.; 24:31-25:46; L. 13: 
24f.). This fact explains the statement of Jesus that the 
kingdom is future, although it is also present. When 
the new force introduced by Christ shall accomplish 
God's purposes, the kingdom will be the ideal one 
imagination pictures. 

3. Consummation of the Kingdom. Just as in 



108 

its inception and enlargement the kingdom is depend- 
ent on the activity of the Vicegerent, so the separation 
that will perfect it will take place at the 'coming of the 
Son of man' (Matt. 24: 31; 25: 31; 13: 41). Caution is 
needed in studying this subject, for we are dealing with 
prophecy. In addition to the difficulties inherent in the 
study of prophecy, there is the added one, that we are 
not sure that Jesus' words are reported in their histori- 
cal connections. The misinterpretation of Old Testa- 
ment prophecy by the Jews must warn us not to be too 
certain of our interpretation of predictions found in the 
New Testament. Uncertainty as to the result must not 
prevent an attempt to understand Jesus' words, but it 
must increase caution. 

The personal act of the Son of man in consummat- 
ing the kingdom occupies the foreground in Christ's 
teaching concerning the end. 

According to Jewish thought the coming of the 
Messiah divided the history of the world into two per- 
iods. The time before his advent was called 'this age;' 
and the time subsequent to it was known as 'the age to 
come.' In the words of Jesus the expression 'this age' 
or 'the age' means the time before the Parousia, and 
the phrase 'the age to come' refers to the period of his- 
tory after the Parousia (Matt. 12:32; 13:39, 40, 49; 
28: 20; Mk. 10: 30; L. 18: 30; 20: 35). That is, the de- 
cisive event in human history, known as the coming of 
Christ, is thrown forward the length of time elapsing 
between his coming as Savior and his coming as Judge, 
but the Jewish technical terms are retained. The Pa- 



109 

rousia will close one period of history and at the same 
time usher in another (24: 3). 

I.) Time. Men cannot help asking questions about 
•that future which is of so much concern to them. Both 
intellect and affection suggests questions that seem 
legitimate, but Jesus is strangely silent in regard to 
them. Indeed, he appears unnecessarily curt in an- 
swering his disciples, when they ask about the future 
(Acts i: 7; cf. L. 13: 23f.). His aim always was to use 
the future to enforce practical duties in the life that now 
is, and not to answer curious or speculative questions. 
In keeping with this purpose, he did not answer clearly 
the questions, "When will these things be, and what is 
the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age" (Matt. 
24: 3). If he had done so, he would have defeated his 
purpose to teach the need of watchfulness and readi- 
ness. He distinctly said that he did not know the time 
of his coming (Matt. 24: 36; Mk. 13: 32). This explicit 
statement must regulate interpretations of passages 
which seem to indicate that he knew something about 
the time of the Parousia. Some sayings evidently point 
to an early coming (Matt. 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; 26: 
64); others indicate delay (Matt. 24:48, 5, 19; 25:5, 
19). Also, those teachings that point to a slow and 
gradual development of the kingdom presuppose a long 
period of history. If the interpreter is tempted to set 
aside either class of sayings, because it is impossible to 
reconcile them, he must remember that practical Chris- 
tian living demands that we ever believe that Christ's 
coming may be unexpectedly early or unexpectedly late 



110 

(Matt. 25: 1-12; Mk. 13:35; L. 12:35-46). One thing 
is certain, that he did not wish his disciples to hve as 
though his coming would be at some far distant time. 
They caught his intention, and lived as though he stood 
at the door (James 5 :-g), and the end of all things was 
at hand (I Pet. 4: 7). 

2.) Manner of the Parousia. As in the time so 
in the manner, there is a two-fold representation of the 
Parousia. He will come when men are engaged in or- 
dinary pursuits, and surprise them by his unexpected 
arrival (L. 17: 26-30, of Matt. 24: 37-39; Matt. 24: 42- 
44; Mk. 13: 32-37; L. 12: 35-40). His coming will not 
be confined to one place, but will be visible to all (L. 
17: 23-24; Matt. 24: 26-28). It will be a wondrous 
revelation of his glory and power (Matt. 24:29-31; 
25 : 31 ;L. 21:27). 

According to another representation, signs will 
herald his appearance. But Jesus distinctly antago- 
nizes the ordinary Jewish conception that wars, fam- 
ines and earthquakes presage the end of the world 
(Matt. 24: 6, 7). These must come because of the pres- 
ent constitution of the physical universe and of human 
society. The disciples suffer from such disasters, be- 
cause they are not exempt from calamities that befall 
all men ; but they will endure other sufferings of which 
these natural calamities are but premonitory (Matt. 24: 
8). In addition to the pains that come in the ordinary 
course of nature, they will sutler persecution, which 
will last until the gospel has been proclaimed to all na- 
tions. The one sure sign of the end is the world-wide 



Ill 

extension of the gospel (Matt. 24: 14; Mk. 13: 10). 
However we understand the signs in sun, and moon 
and stars, and disturbances on sea and land, whether as 
actual premonitory signs, or occurrences accompany- 
ing the appearance of the Son of man, or pictorial de- 
scriptions of changes in God's moral government, the 
Evangelists agree in putting a period of time between 
the sign and that to which the sign points (Matt. 24: 
32-33; Mk. 13:28,29; L. 21:29-31). 

According to the second representation the Pa- 
rousia is limited to Palestine and to that generation. 
That is, the judgment comes to Jerusalem, and escape 
will be almost impossible (Matt. 24: 15-22; ]\Ik. 13: 14- 
23; L. 21:20-28). And the signs are such as may be 
seen by any observer of a siege (L. 21 : 20, 21). In con- 
nection with these events, the power and glory of the 
Son of man are manifested (L. 21 : 27, cf. Matt. 26: 64). 

This two-fold view is not self-contradictory, but is 
a phenomenon common in prophetic literature, where 
the prophet sometimes refers to the consummation and 
sometimes to nearer historical occasions. He can do 
this, because with prophets the truths announced are 
the essential things ; it matters little whether a near and 
local, or remote and universal historical phenomenon 
illustrates the truth. 

3.) Nature of the Parousia. Matthew 10:23 
simply mentions the coming of the Son of man, and 
shows that it will be in the lifetime of his messengers. 
The passage gives no hint as to its nature. Luke 12: 
35-48 occurs in a context that furnishes little help, yet 



112 

it must not be overlooked that it is followed by a refer- 
ence to the death of the Son of man. Matthew i6: 2^, 
28 is spoken in connection with the transfiguration, but 
it cannot refer to that event. The coming predicted in 
this passage must be far enough in the future to give 
time for most of his hearers to die, and yet not so far but 
that some will be living. Again, the 'coming of the Son 
of man' in Matthew must be explained by the 'coming 
of the kingdom of God' in Mark 9: i and Luke 9: 2y. 

Matthew 23:37-25:46, Mark 13: 1-37, and Luke 
21 : 5-36 combine the coming of Christ with the de- 
struction of Jerusalem; Luke 17: 20-37 joins his com- 
ing with both the suffering of the Son of man and the 
destruction of Jerusalem; and Matthew 13: 37-43 rep- 
resents the Son of man as consummating the age by 
angelic agency. 

It is conceivable and probable that Jesus spoke of 
his coming in more than one sense. The warrant for such 
a supposition is, that he speaks of the ministry of John 
the Baptist as the ministry of Elijah, thereby giving a 
different meaning to the Old Testament prediction of 
Elijah's coming from that given by Jewish interpreters 
(Matt. 11: 14). Jesus came to his disciples in the resur- 
rection, in the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, in the 
overthrow of the Jewish nation, and will come apoca- 
lyptically at the end of the age. It is comparatively 
easy to believe any one of these, except the last; hence, 
the tendency is to identify Christ's prediction of his 
coming with one of the first three. But it cannot be de- 
nied without arbitrary criticism and exegesis that Jesus 



113 

spoke of a coming, which would overtake men Hke an 
overwhelming catastrophe, and bring to an end the 
existence of human society as now constituted. 

The two views of the gradual development of the 
kingdom of God and of signal disturbances within the 
kingdom are no more incompatible than the conception 
of silent, slow and gradual working of historical forces, 
which culminate in revolutions. A uniformitarian in 
Geology denies the truth of the cataclysmist, only be- 
cause he overlooks the fact that there are earthquakes, 
tidal waves and avalanches : and the cataclysmist scouts 
the theory of the uniformitarian, because he neglects to 
watch the effects of showers, the ceaseless ebb and flow 
of tides, and the constant deposit of earth at rivers' 
mouths. The earth's formation has been effected by 
the forces insisted upon by both theorists. Likewise, 
the kingdom of God was established by the Son of man, 
and it unfolds gradually by silent forces, human and di- 
vine, and at great crises in the world's history it exper- 
iences a change so marked as to be fitly called a coming 
of Him who guides its destiny. Each of these crises is 
but a type of the final coming, when the kingdom shall 
have reached its consummation in a new heaven and a 
new earth, wherein righteousness shall dwell. 

4.) Purpose OF THE Parousia. According to the 
Old Testament and pre-christian Jewish literature Je- 
hovah himself is Judge. Xowhere in this literature is 
the^Messiah spoken of as the final arbiter of the conduct 
of men. When judgment is ascribed to him, it is in the 
sense of administration in the kingdom, and not in the 



114 

sense of final decision. Jesus goes far beyond this 
teaching, when he claims to be the Judge in the last 
day (Matt. 7: 22f.; 24: 37f.; L. 21: 34f.). This is neces- 
sarily so, if he is the mediator of God's righteousness to 
men; for relation to Christ determines relation to God. 
God's judgment must be mediated through the same 
person as his righteousness. Hence, the purpose of 
Christ's coming is to justify or condemn, according to 
man's relation to himself. 

The language describing the last judgment is so 
figurative, that we can safely do nothing more than 
state that there will be a judgment and that it is based 
on certain great principles. Jesus speaks of the pur- 
pose of his coming incidentally, in order to encourage 
and warn his followers, and not to satisfy curiosity. TJie 
judgment will have special significance for his disciples, 
yet it has a bearing on mankind in general. Jesus dis- 
tinctly states that among the judged will be his disci- 
ples, the Jews (Matt. 19: 28) and the heathen (Matt. 25 : 
37, 38). Those to whom he talked will appear with the 
men of Nineveh, the Queen of Sheba and the inhabi- 
tants of Tyre and Sidon (Matt. 11 : 20-24; 12: 41, 42; L. 
11:31, 32). That is, the judgment will be universal and 
individual. Its individuality is strongly emphasized in 
the rejection of the single man who had not a wedding 
garment (Matt. 22 : 1-14). The universal and individual 
character of the judgment cannot be more tersely ex- 
pressed, than in the words: ''He will render to each one 
according to his actions" (Matt. 16: 2^). 

To faithful followers the result of the judgment 



115 

will be the highest good conceivable, namely, eternal 
life (Matt. 19: 17, 23; 25: 34, 46). This good is for all 
faithful ones, but since disciples are servants, thev will 
be rewarded according to their willingness to work 
(Matt. 20: 1-16), their fidelity to the Master's interests 
(Matt. 25: I4f]f.), and their efficiency (L. 19: 11-27). 
The rewards are described by a variety of figures, viz. 
lord over cities (L. 19: 17), lord over all his Master's 
goods (L. 12:44). sharer in the Lord's joy (Matt. 25: 
21), the Lord's guests (L. 12:37), participation in a 
marriage feast (Matt. 25: 21), sharers in the eternal 
kingdom (Matt. 25: 34). 

To the unfaithful will come exclusion from the 
kingdom of God. The punishment is described as a 
furnace of fire (Matt. 13: 41), hell-fire (Mk. 9: 47), outer 
darkness (Matt. 22: 13, 25: 30), gnawing worm (Mk. 9: 
48), exclusion from a marriage feast (Matt. 25: 12), a 
cutting in two (Matt. 24: 51), a death surpassing the 
most dreadful death known to his hearers (Matt. 18: 
6). The punishment is as lasting as the reward (Matt. 
25: 46); and its severity will be conditioned on the of- 
fender's knowledge of the Lord's will (L. 12: 47, 48). 

Whether the criterion of judgment is the same for 
non-Christians as for professed followers of Christ can- 
not be certainly determined. Matthew 25: 31-46 is the 
main determining passage. There are four possible in- 
terpretations of this judgment scene. First, the judged 
are all mankind; second, gentiles in distinction from 
Jews; third, non-Christians in distinction from the 
elect; fourth, professing Christians only. If it is sup- 



110 

posed that the judged are only those that have not had 
opportunity to come into personal relation with Christ, 
the basis of judgment is an act of disinterested love per- 
formed for the sake of doing good ; but if it is supposed 
that Christ assumes that all men living at the time of his 
coming shall have had opportunity to know him as the 
standard of good, the test will be not simply an act of 
love per sc, but a kind act performed with reference to 
him (Mk. 9:41). That the criterion of judgment in 
Matthew 24: 31-46 was not intended to be a different 
one from that by which disciples will be judged is plain 
from the fact that Jesus always spoke of the judgment 
as determined by conduct (Matt. 12:36, 37; 16:27; 
13:41; io:42;25:3iff.). 

In Christ's words there is no hint of universal res- 
toration, annihilation, or future probation. Whatever 
our speculations about the ultimate destiny of men may 
be, we must hold fast to the certainty of punishment for 
sin, and refuse to give more weight to our sentiments 
than to express declaration of Scripture. Regard for 
earnest Christian living will prevent entertaining hope 
for ourselves, or sanctioning hope for others, that is not 
warranted by the words of Jesus Christ. 

Jesus taught the fact of a resurrection (Matt. 
22: 23f.), and declared that it introduced men into a dif- 
ferent mode of existence from that now experienced (L. 
20: 35, 36). Because he mentions the resurrection of 
the righteous only, is no sufficient warrant for the in- 
ference that he did not believe in the resurrection of the 
wicked also (L. 14; 20: 35). He does not state the time 



of the resurrection, but it is probably synchronous with 
the inauguration of the 'age to come' (L. 20: 35), and 
therefore synchronous with his coming to restore the 
disordered world to its perfection (Matt. 19: 28). 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS. 



THE TEACHING OF JESUS 

ACCORDING TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 

The discourses of Jesus in John's gospel differ so 
markedly from those reported by the synoptists, and 
have vocabulary, style and contents so like John's own 
language and teaching, that a troublesome question in 
literary and historical criticism arises. As a conse- 
quence, christian scholars are not agreed as to whether 
the words of Jesus reported by John can be used as 
sources for Christ's doctrine. 

It seems best to treat the synoptic and Johannine 
reports separately, in order to bring out more clearly 
the likenesses and differences in each, and so allow Bib- 
lical Theology to contribute its share to the solution of 
the critical problem. 

In John, as in the Synoptists, Jesus teaches con- 
cerning the kingdom of God (3: 3, 5), but in the former, 
attention is confined to the chief benefit of the kingdom, 
namely, eternal life (3: 15). We may conveniently, 
then, yet not arbitrarily, consider Jesus' teaching in 
John's gospel under the divisions. The Author, the 
Mediator, the Possessors of Eternal Life, 



121 



THE AUTHOR OF ETERNAL LIFE— QOD. 



THE AUTHOR OF ETERXAL LIFE— GOD. 

I. Attributes of God. In John, as in the Syn- 
opitists, emphasis is placed on God's moral nature. In 
quite metaphysical fashion God is called 'spirit.' but for 
the purely practical purpose of teaching, that if the 
spiritual nature of God is apprehended, here will be no 
disposition to think that worship consists in ceremonies 
performed at consecrated places (4:24). Only a God 
who is spirit is worthy the name God. and true worship 
of such a Being consists in the attitude of the human 
spirit. Conception of God as spirit makes localization 
of him impossible, and consecrates every human soul a 
temple of God. 

Allied to the notion that God is spirit is the notion 
that he is 'true.' That is, he alone fulfils the idea of God 
in opposition to false gods (17: 3). This conception of 
Jehovah had been taught by all Israel's teachers from 
the founding of the nation, and the nation had learned 
it by eventful experiences. 

The personal nature of God who is spirit is as- 
sumed in calling him "the living Father* (6: 57). The 
possession of life also distingtiisnes him from heathen 
deities, and makes it possible for him to operate actively 
in the world by general providence (5 : 17). Having life 
in himself, he is the source of life, and therefore quick- 
ens the dead and makes alive (5 : 26, 21 j. 

125 



126 

The moral nature of the Hving God is expressed 
by the adjectives 'holy' and 'righteous,' and by describ- 
ing him as loving the world to the extent of sending his 
Son to die for it. He is holy, because he has no contact 
with the world's moral defilement, and may be de- 
pended upon to keep disciples of Christ from its con- 
tamination (17: 11). He is righteous, because he 
"works in true consistency." That is, he maintains his 
character as a God that distinguishes between right and 
wrong by giving to Jesus' disciples what he cannot give 
to men blinded by sin (17: 25). 

2. Fatherliness of God. Jesus declared the 
greatness of God's love in the incomparable words, 
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only be- 
gotten Son, that every one who believes on him should 
not perish, but have eternal life" (3: 16); he grounds his 
own beneficient activity on the ceaseless beneficence of 
his Father (5: 17-21); and his own death for the salva- 
tion of others shows the loving purpose of God (10: 1 1- 
18). No one who perceives the undoubted love of Jesus 
for sinners, can doubt the love of God. 

The unbounded love of God is expressed by the 
term 'father.' So earnestly did Jesus teach the fatherly 
character of God, that he used the terms God and Fath- 
er as practical synonyms. (4: 21, 23; 6: 27, 46; 20: 17). 
That is, God is a universal Father, because he has 
yearning love for all men however sinful. But the 
fatherliness of God does not involve the sonship of men 
as a necessary corollary. What Jesus meant by calling 
God Father may be seen from the following facts. He 



127 

called God 'your Father' only once, and then after the 
resurrection when speaking to his disciples (20: 17). 
Seventy times he named him 'the Father.' twenty-eight 
times 'my Father." and nine times 'Father." There can 
be little doubt of his meaning, when he uses the expres- 
sions "Father" and 'my Father." He intended to convey 
the idea that he stood in such unique relation to God, 
that it was appropriate for him alone to call him Fa- 
ther. God was Father to Jesus Christ in a way that he 
is not to others. But he is also Father to others as well 
as to Jesus. Those who love the Son are in filial rela- 
tion to God u6: 27). and are special objects of his love 
(14:23). Jesus distinctly repudiated the idea that 
God's fatherliness consisted in his covenant relation to 
Israel, as the Jews fondly imagined (8:41. 42). The 
fact was. that Satan, and not God. was the father of the 
apostate people, as their conduct amply proved (8: 44). 
Sonship. then, does not consist in man"s natural or na- 
tional relationship to God. but in an ethical likeness. 
God is father in a peculiar sense to those that bear a 
moral likeness to himself. 

The various ideas conveyed by the name 'Father' 
arises from the fact, that it is a figure of speech, sug- 
gesting some likeness between God and a human fa- 
ther, but what the likeness is must be determined by the 
context. He is Father of all men, because he loves all 
men, just as a human father loves all his children; he is 
Father of believers in Christ with added intensity of 
love, because of their moral likeness to himself, as 
an earthly father has peculiar affection for dutiful child- 



12§ 

'ren; he is Father of Jesus, because he loves him with an 
intensity known only to a holy Father, who takes im- 
measurable delight in the spotless purity of a son, and 
because he and Jesus have an essential relationship. 
The term 'only begotten' suggests another figure than 
that of paternal love, and indicates the reason for which 
paternal love exists. If Christ is the only begotten Son, 
God must be Father to him in a sense inapplicable to 
other men, whether believers or not (3: 16, 18). 



THE MEDIATOR OF ETERNAL LIFE— JESUS 
CHRIST. 



THE MEDIATOR OF ETERXAL LIFE— JESUS 
CHRIST. 

In keeping with his designation of God as 'the Fa- 
ther,' Jesus calls himself 'the Son.' Because he is Son, 
he. has gotten his life from the Father (5: 26; 6: 57), — 
a life that is absolute (5: 2'/') and makes it possible for 
him to give life to others (5:21; 17:2). He gives eter- 
nal life by giving the knowledge of the only true God 
(17: 3), and he does this so completely, that he alone is 
the way and the truth and the life (14: 6). So fully does 
he reveal God, that he can say, "He that has seen me 
has seen the Father" (14:9). Since Jesus made such 
claims for himself, we must note what he says about his 
person and work. 

I. Person OF THE ^Mediator, i) The Sox. The 
name that Jesus most frequently gave himself was 'the 
Son.' Once he said 'thy Son,' and three times he used 
the longer title 'the Son of God.' 'The Son' was not a 
messianic title, but a personal name that Jesus gave him- 
self. The Jews did not understand 'the Son' to be a title 
synonymous with the Alessiah. for they had heard Jesus 
call himself Son, and yet they ask, "If thou art the 
Christ, tell us plainly" (10: 24). He replied, that he had 
told them by doing the works of the Son. They see the 
implication of his words, and like fanatical monotheists 

131 



132 

seek to destroy one that claimed to be God (lo: 33). 
They could not have brought the charge of blasphemy 
against him, if he had claimed to be the Christ. If they 
had been certain that he was the Messiah, they would 
have had no objection to the term Son, for the Messiah 
must be the Son of God in an official sense (i : 34, 49; 6: 
69; 11:27). Jesus, on the contrary, teaches that the 
Son of God must be the Messiah. That is, the nature of 
the person called 'the Son' makes it fit for him to claim 
the office of the Christ. 

There is no person in heaven or on earth compar- 
able with the Son, for he is the 'only begotten' of God 
63: 16, 18). The words 'only begotten' at once distin- 
guish the incarnate Son from all men, and suggest a 
metaphysical relationship between God and Christ. 
This is made evident by the passages that teach a pre- 
temporal existence. The Jews who heard Jesus say, 
"Verily, Verily, I say to you, before Abraham was, I 
am," did not think that he intended to teach his ideal 
pre-existence, but an actual existence before the life- 
time of Abraham. If it was a current mode of thought 
to convert an end into a cause, or to conceive realis- 
tically an ideal pre-existence as an actual one, and if 
Christ's pre-existence is to be conceived in this way, it 
is difficult to account for the excessive anger of Jesus' 
hearers (8: 59). In his pre-incarnate state he had the 
Father's love (17:24) and the Father's glory (17:5). 
He taught his heavenly origin to those who stumbled 
at his earthly origin (7: 27-44; 6: 35-59). He was pres- 
ent in the world, because the Father sent him (4: 34; 5 : 



23: /:2S:S: 16. 42: 16: 28: 17: 8). He came into the 
world by birth diS: 37). but retained the consciousness 
of the Father's love experienced before birth, and ex- 
pected to have again the glor\- he once shared with the 
Father (17: 24K His unique knowledge of God rested 
on the fact that he came from God ij: 28:6: 46). That 
is. his pre-incamate knowledge of God was not laid 
aside at birth in the flesh. 

The reciprocal action :: 7r-:':tr and Sct, i^ Sr^n ::: 
: It each does what is appropriate tc : r. 7 / r 

J_. -;: ^-ves life to rhe S:ri 5: 26*. loves him 5 :2c 
10: 17: 15: 9I ^ir.:~ : - :^s^ i6: 15: 17: lo), and 

f : : r- It /im ^8; 29: i6; ^i: the Son keeps his 
7^:.icr - .vc r:i^ > : 55). speaks what his Father teaches 
(8: 28: 12: 50)1. seeks to do his Father's will 15: 30: 6: 
38: 15: 10: 4: 34». does only what he sees his ri:htr 
doing (5 : 19II, and desires his Father's honor rather -.:.: 
his own i8 : 49 : 7 : 18). So intimate are they that F i:h er 
and Son are one (10: 30). and whoever has seen tht 5 : n 
has see" rh^ Father (14: O'. 

Zi; :r retine the lass^^— :r ::2r on thr :.:.'. 
: -\\~ F : : :; I 7: 5 t : :- : : similar ex- 

press::- fT 5t : r^;r::-c :lir rclc^::: : : :::2!ignant 
Jews :: t I 7 ^ ^^-M^l*. and to tea;/ ./t . nion of 
believers :: F : viith God 117: 11. 21, 22). 

While " t5t :i :^— t r:-T:!ar. they do n:: 'r-r^ish 
ideas : t : : : — ::: /re furnished : : :t : :::s 

that teacii Chr:s:s .:: ::: s:L AllmoCr::: Fr 

of thougt: :Fr^ ■: :. :: f - : t::::s" ir:L : 

union wiF; ^ - :.:.z: : :.: : v.- Lzv/ ...z-: z— :. . 



134 

unity. This denial is almost wholly due to philosophi- 
cal preconceptions, and does not rest on sound exegeti- 
cal and historical grounds. 

2.) The Son of Man. As in the Synoptists so in 
John, the title 'the Son of man' is used by Jesus only, but 
it is found less frequently in John. Jesus used the title 
in connection with intimations concerning his death 
and in connection with lofty claims that he made for 
himself (i : 51 ; 5: 27). Thus in an obscure way he an- 
nounced himself as the Messiah, who will found on 
earth the kingdom that Daniel depicted, and allowed 
the future to unfold the full significance of the title, 
when interpreted in the light ot his death. But while 
'the Son of man' is a messianic title, its appropriateness 
must be due to some relation that he holds to humanity, 
either because he does service for man, or because he 
shares man's nature. Of course, both are true, but it is 
probable that Jesus intended to suggest that the latter 
w^as the reason for the former. At any rate, he con- 
fessed that he was man (8: 40), having fiesh and blood 
(6:54), suffering thirst (19:28) and experiencing an- 
guish of soul (12: 2^). He classed himself with other 
Jews as worshippers of God (4: 22), and thought of God 
as One to whom it was fitting for him to pray (11: 42). 
In the fact of prayer he acknowledged dependence upon 
the Father, and he also said expressly, that he was un- 
able to do anything without the Father (5: 30). This 
inferiority was ofThcial, and official inferiority arose from 
participation in human nature. Since he was consecra- 
ted to do messianic work (10: 36), he had not, while in 



135 

the flesh, divine glory (17: 5). He was under com- 
mandment (10: 18; 14:31; 15: 10; 18: 11), and had to 
wait the Father's direction as to what he should do and 
teach (8: 28; 12: 49, 50). Because he was an obedient 
Son he enjoyed the Father's love (8: 29; 10: 17; 15: 10), 
and if he should successfully carry out the Father's di- 
rections, he would receive divine glory as a reward (17: 

5). 

Note that while Jesus acknowledged subordination 
to God (14:28), and claimed participation in human 
frailties, he challenged any one to detect a fault in him 
(8: 46), and said that he was not in any way subject to 
the Devil morally (14: 30). 

3.) The Christ. While the people suspected that 
he was the Christ he was slow to announce himself as 
such (10: 24, 25). He intended that his works should 
testify of him (10:25, 38). He openly announced his 
office to the woman of Sychar, because she thought of 
the Messiah as teacher, not as king (4: 25, 26). In 
John's gospel, then, Jesus' self-disclosure is represented 
as gradual, as in the Synoptists. 

4.) Son of David. This title is not given him in 
John's account, hence he has no occasion to assent to it 
as appropriate. But it is a fact, that at the beginning of 
Jesus' public work, |\ athaniel exclaimed in enthusiastic 
surprise, "Thou are the King of Israel" (i: 49), and at 
the close of his ministry the people cried, "Hosanna; 
blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, even 
the King of Israel" (12: 13). Jesus knew that he was 
king, and if he had denied it, he would have virtually 



136 

denied the fact of his earthly existence. He was born 
to be king (i8: 37). Yet he does not claim to be king in 
the worldly sense, but by virtue of the truth he preaches. 
In harmony with his kingship is the claim to the royal 
prerogative of judging (5: 22-30). Jesus, then, appro- 
priated to himself the royal authority, that the Old Tes- 
tament predicted must belong to Israel's King 
(12: 14-16). 

2. Work of the Mediator. The special mis- 
sion of the Son was to give eternal life (10: 10; 17: 2). 
He was qualified to do this, because he had life in him- 
self (5: 26) and was himself the life (11: 25; 14: 6). This 
inherent qualification made it fit for the Father to seal 
him and him alone for messianic work (6: 27; 10: 36). 
The Son secured eternal life for men by manifesting 
God, since eternal life depends on knowledge of God 
(17: 3-6), and by laying down his life (10: 11), since ap- 
propriation of the benefits of his death is the indispen- 
sable condition of life (6: 53). 

I.) Revealing God. As teacher he taught only 
what the Father directed (12: 49), and was so far from 
teaching error, that he challenged any one to convict 
him of sin (8: 46). At the close of his life he could say, 
"The words which thou gavest me I have given to 
them" (17: 8). Since his words were God's words, he 
made astounding claims for them (14: 24). They free 
from the bondage of sin (8: 31, 32); they purge of im- 
purity (15: 3); they save from death (8: 52); and they 
will judge in the last day (12: 48). 

As Jesus by his words reveals God to the world, he 



137 

is the light of the world (8: 12.; 9: 5; 12: 35); as he 
makes known" the true character of God and his de- 
mands on men, he is the truth (14: 6: 18: 17); as he is 
the medium by which men approach the Father, he is 
the way (14: 6); and as he experienced in himself the 
content of the message he brought and can enable 
others to enjoy the same experience, he is the life (14: 
6). It follows from what he is, that rejection of his 
words estabhshes guilt (12 : 47). But he pronounced no 
formal sentence of condemnation, for judgment was not 
the purpose of his mission (12 : 47). The attitude of men 
towards his teaching determines their ethical character, 
and so determines whether he shall be their Judge (5 : 
2.2., 27; 9: 39), or their Savior (3: 17). It is inevitable 
that man's nature should be revealed by the light of the 
w^orld, ajid so distinction made between the self-right- 
eous and the spiritually dissatisfied (9: 39-41). 

In connection with his teaching Jesus gave 'signs.' 
These were not an end in themselves, but were intended 
to point to the character of the worker, or to his relation 
with the Father. The latter was the main purpose (10: 
25, 38; 14: 10-12; 15: 24). All the miracles that Jesus 
worked deserved the epithet 'good,' because they re- 
vealed the character of the Father (10: 32). He used, 
with three exceptions (4: 48: 6: 26), the word "works' to 
designate his miracles, because miraculous working 
was only part of his general messianic activity. 

Jesus refused to work signs on demand (2: 19; 6: 
30), yet he promised that an undoubted sign would be 
given (2 : 19). In this respect the Johannine and synop- 



138 

tic reports of Jesus' attitude towards popular expecta- 
tion are in agreement. 

2.) Death of the Mediator. Jesus' teaching 
aroused opposition, and his enemies determined to kill 
him. His death was not a penalty inflicted for crimes 
that he had committed (15: 25), but due solely to the 
murderous hate of wicked men (8: 37; 15: 18). They, 
however, did not wrest his life from him, for he gave it 
up voluntarily (10: 18), and thus showed love and obed- 
ience to the Father (14: 31), and won in return the love 
of his Father (10: 17.) His death was not an incidental 
part of his messianic work, but a necessity in order to 
make his work complete and efficacious. He knew from 
the first that a violent termination of his earthly life 
awaited him. In his early ministry he obscurely alluded 
to it (2: 19; 3: 14), but later he declared it plainly (10: 
II, 17; 12: 24; 13: 21). 

His death did not destroy his power to give life, 
but was the means by which life is secured for his 
friends and followers (15: 13; 10: 11-13). How his death 
avails for them he does not say, nor does he ground the 
forgiveness of sins on it, as in the other Gospels, yet it 
is an objective condition of eternal life (3: 15). In John's 
Gospel the death of Jesus is represented as proof of ab- 
solute self-surrender to the service of love (12: 24-26) 
and as an exhibition of love that will win the world (12: 
33), rather than as an atonement; but the atoning value 
of the death is not denied. It is simply not mentioned. 

The cross did not end the work of Christ, for he re- 
ceived his life again (10: 17, 18), and entered into 



139 

heavenly g^ory (14: 28). So cenain was Jesus of the 
glorious future awaiting hun. that he did not use the 
word death to describe his departure from life, but used 
words denoting joy and glory (7: 33: 14: 12: 16: 10. 28: 
17: II. 13: 12: 23: 13: ^: 17: 5, 24). In his glorified 
state he is in fellowship with his followers, and wiU an- 
swer their prayers (14: 13). As he had interceded for 
them while he was on earth, so he continues his inter- 
cession in heaven, and will send the Holy Spirit to be 
their constant guide (14: 16). The Spirit will call to 
their remembrance Jesus' words (^14: 26), will lead them 
into all the truth (16: 13). and will enable the disciples 
to bear testimony to the messiah^p of Jesus (15: 26). 

The likeness of John's representation of Jesus* 
teaching on his person and work with that of the 
S\-noptists is apparent, and the fi^erer. : ? ?.-r not con- 
tradictions. 

^j E xrz: 7 ? r:-:z Mediator's Work. Jesus' 
:: ^ : : r i (6:33. 51; 8: 12: 12: 47), but 

1- ri:: : : TTi : - reaching was confined to nar- 
row limits. The coming of the Greeks gave him oppor- 
tunity to say. that the limited sphere of work would be 
widened on the condition of his crucifixion (12: 32). 
Since e:er::al life depends on personal fellowship with 
hir graciously oflters life to all mankind. 

Jes. of no limitations to the power of his 

word and his death, except such as the stubborn sinful- 
ness of man imposed. 

4.) Oppositiox 7 : His Work, The term worid' 
is used in a physical and in an ethical sense. In the lat- 



140 

ter signification, it is ruled by Satan (12: 31; 14: 30; 16: 
11), because he is the author of moral evil in humanity 
(8:44). Since Jesus came to save the sin-enslaved 
world, he aroused its Prince to opposition. The Devil 
showed his hostility by inciting the Jews to enmity (8: 
44), instigating Judas to treachery (6: yd), and arming 
men to arrest and kill the Christ (14: 20). But the op- 
position of Satan is vain, for he has no moral power 
over Jesus (14: 30). On the contrary, Jesus has over- 
come the evil of the world (16: 33). He proved his su- 
periority by choosing disciples out of the world (15 : 19) 
and guarding them from perdition (17: 12). While his 
death seemed a defeat, it was in reality a victory, for by 
it Satan was judged (12: 31, 32; 16: 11) and the Son 
glorified (13: 31). 



POSSESSERS OF ETERNAL LIFE— BELIEVERS. 



POSSESSORS OF ETERNAL LIFE— BELIE\'- 
ERS. 

Physical life is the ground and occasion of all hu- 
man experiences, and so highly valued are these exper- 
iences, that men regard life the highest good. Xatural 
life, then, is an appropriate illustration of that which is 
to be experienced in the kingdom of God. So salva- 
tion is thought of as life' ^3: 36; 5: 24: 6: 33: 10: loj or 
*tlie life' (1 1 : 25 : 14: 6}, in comparison with which com- 
mon human existence is not worthy to be called life. As 
physical life baffles analysis and definition, so hfe in the 
kingdom of God cannot be known by definition and de- 
scription: it must be experienced. 

As the disappointment of human life is its breviry, 
the joy of the life with God is, by contrast, eternal. 
Etemirv- of life rests upon the fact that it is life with 
God : and relation to him depends not on time and place, 
but on moral likeness. So that the phrase 'eternal life' 
expresses at once the endless duration and the spiritual 
quality- of life in Christ. 

Eternal life does not belong to men by virtue of 
natural birth, for birth introduces into a human society 
that is enthralled by sin (12: 31 : 14: 301. The world/ 
that is, the human race as it appears in history , needs 
salvation (3: 16: 12:46, 47 «. Men naturallv are in a 

143 



144 

state of sin, in which they must die, unless made ahve 
by Christ (8: 21-24). This sinful condition is described 
as darkness (8: 12, 46), as bondage (8: 32-36), and as 
death (5: 21, 40). The life that begins at natural birth 
is not life, compared with the life inaugurated by the 
Spirit (3: 5). Hence, salvation is described as light, 
freedom, life, and a new birth. Entrance into life by 
new birth is a change wrought in the disposition of man 
by the Holy Spirit, but the method of the change is as 
little known as the movements of the wind (3:8). 

I. Conditions of Receiving Eternal Life. 
The agency of the Spirit in effecting transformation of 
character does not deny man's co-operation. Faith is 
required as the subjective condition of eternal life (3: 
15). The Son must be the object of faith. Only three 
times does Jesus speak of faith in God. In two of the 
passages, faith must be in the Father, because of his re- 
lation to the Son (5 : 24; 12: 44) ; and in the third, Jesus 
demands that disciples have the same faith in him as in 
God (14: i). 

To believe in Christ is to accept his teaching as 
true (4^2I; 5:47; 8: 31); to acknowledge that he has 
been divinely sent (6: 29; 11 : 42; 16: 27), that he has an 
unearthly origin (8: 23), and that he is the Messiah (8: 
24; 13: 19). Belief is outwardly attested by following 
him as pupils follow a teacher (5 : 40 ; 6 : 35, 65), by seek- 
ing him as men in darkness seek the light (8: 12), by 
following him as sheep follow a shepherd (10: 2y), by 
serving him (12:26), by loving him (8:42), and by 
honoring him as God is honored (5: 2-^. He must be 



145 

prized as men prize food and drink, and regarded the 
sole means of satisfying the thirst and hunger of the 
soul. Life apart from him must be thought impossible 
(6: 27-58). So entirely did Jesus centre faith in himself, 
that he said: "This is the work of God. that ye believe 
on him whom he sent" (6: 29). 

Jesus assigned reasons why men should believe on 
him. namely, the testimony of Scriptures (5 : 39, 47). the 
testimony of John the Baptist (5: 33), the evidence of 
his death (8: 28), the fulfillment of his predictions (14: 
29), and the witness of a willing mind (7: 17). 

I.) CoxDiTioxs Rejected. Since faith is the hu- 
man condition of passing from death into life, those who 
are not willing to attach themselves to Jesus are dead 
(5: 40; 6: 53). If there be no change, they must die in 
sin (8: 24), and therefore be condemned in the last day 
(5:22; 12:48). It seems strange that men reject the 
of¥er of life, but Jesus gave reasons for such conduct. 
Worldly wisdom prevents the receptivity necessary to 
obtain salvation (9: 41) : unwillingness keeps aloof from 
Christ (7: 17) ; and men. who seek glory of their fellows 
rather than of Christ, reject one not of their spirit (5 : 41- 
44), and are aroused against one that testifies of evil (7: 
7). Plan's opposition to God is due to the fact that he 
belongs to this world and is ruhd by Satan (8: 44-47); 
and he is so ruled because he wishes to do the desires of 
Satan. Ability to serve the Devil becomes inability to 
serve God (8: 43). The 'cannot' is the inevitable result 
of 'will not,' since character tends to fixity. 

2.) CoxDiTioxs Accepted. Though the human 



146 

will is active in accepting the conditions (7: 17), yet 
ability to accept is given by God (6: 65). Approach to 
Christ in faith is dependent on the Father's drawing (6: 
44).. Jesus' disciples were disciples because God had 
given them to his Son (6: 37; 17:2, 6). The fact that 
spiritual "discernment is given men by the Father is 
common to John and the Synoptists (Matt. 13: 11; 16: 
17), and is joyously acknowledged by believers in God. 

Jesus did not harmonize the necessity of divine 
help with the fact of human freedom, but accepted as 
true that which appears true to human consciousness. 
His insistence on man's responsibility and consequent 
guilt is unequivocal (15: 22). 

2. Laws Governing Believers. In the Synop- 
tists eternal life is described as a future possession of 
beHevers (Mk. 10: 30; L. 18: 30). In" John it is a pres- 
ent possession (5: 24; 6: 47, 54), as well as future (12: 
25; 14: 19). Just as the kingdom of heaven is spoken 
of in present and future tenses, so the chief benefit of the 
kingdom is described. This means that the transforma- 
tion of character effected by the Spirit is continuous, 
and that it will be perfected only by the resurrection in 
the last day (6: 54; 11: 25). As natural life is tested by 
discipline, so spiritual life must show itself weak or 
strong amid the vicissitudes of earthly existence. Those 
that believe are in the world (15: 19; 17: 14; 15: 20; 16: 
2, 33) and are in danger of being overcome by its Prince 
(17:15). Hence, they must trust in God and in Jesus 
(14: i). The faith that conditioned entrance into the 
new life must be constantly maintained, in order to per- 



147 

feet it into the realization of the blessedness of the king- 
dom of God. 

The faith that bears fruit is attachment to Jesus, as 
intimate and vital as the branch to the vine (15:4-6). 
The supreme test of such attachment is determination 
to abide in his words and keep his commandments (14: 
15, 21), especially the new commandment of love (13: 
34; 15: 17J. Love for others is best exhibited in such 
service as a host gives a guest whom he welcomes by 
acting as if he were the guest's slave (13: 14, 15). 
Brotherly love is proof of discipleship (13:35). The 
measure of disciples* love for one another must be 
Christ's love for them (13: 34; 15: i2j. 

I.) Difficulty OF Obedience. Jesus foresaw the 
dangers to which disciples would be exposed, and 
prayed that they might be kept from the evil One (17: 
15) and ultimately behold his own glor\' with the Father 
(17: 24). The hostility of the world and the stringency 
of the 'new commandment' might put believers in con- 
stant dread, lest they lose enternal life, unless they be 
cheered by assurances of ultimate victory. This cer- 
tainty removes all anxieties and fills the heart with 
cheer. Disciples may have the repose of spirit that 
characterized Christ, if they are convinced of the real- 
ity of the victory he has won for them (14: 27; 16: 33). 

2.) ^Motives for Obedience. Jesus had been an 
ever present Helper to his disciples. AMienever they 
had been in physical danger, mental perplexity or moral 
despondency, they had gone to him, and had found 
readv response to their requests. It is always easy to 



148 

be courageous and strong, when visible aid is near; but 
true moral and spiritual life depends on belief in unseen 
support (20: 29). Naturally, the disciples felt like or- 
phans, when their loved Master was removed, but they 
were not orphans (14: 18). He sent another Paraclete, 
who was to them exactly what he himself had been (14: 
16). The Spirit took Christ's place as a personal Teacher 
of the disciples, and continued the same sort of teaching 
(14: 26; 15: 26), and gave instruction, which it was im- 
possible for Christ himself to give (16: 12-14). The 
greater efficiency of the Spirit as Teacher is due to the 
facts, that Jesus' teaching was temporary and local (14: 
16), while the Spirit's is permanent and universal, and 
that the Spirit has the facts of the crucifixion, resur- 
rection and subsequent glory of Jesus to apply to the 
consciences of men, which were lacking to Christ while 
in the flesh. Of course, the sorrow stricken disciples 
could not see the expediency of Jesus' departure, but 
their subsequent experiences amply attested it (16: 15- 

Not only will the Holy Spirit aid them, as Jesus 
had done, but he himself will be present with them (14: 
18; 16: 16, 22). The consciousness of the presence of 
Christ will give intense joy (16: 22), for it will be the 
conviction that he is able and willing to^ grant whatever 
is needful for the perfection of life in him (14: 13, 14). 
This spiritual presence of Christ must not be identified 
with the presence of the Holy Spirit, but is another 
statement of the truth given in Matthew: "Behold, I 
am with you always, to the end of the age." 



149 

Jesus encouraged to steadfastness by asserting the 
love of the Father for disciples (16: 27), and bade them 
increase their joy by praying to God, who is willing to 
answer any request that looks to development of chris- 
tian character (16:24). Obedience secures Christ's 
friendship (15: 14) and continuance in his love (15:16); 
it wins the love of the Father (14: 21) and constant fel- 
lowship of Father and Son. Failure to abide in Christ 
brings destruction (15: 6). 

3. Realization of Eternal Life. While the 
blessings of eternal life are enjoyed in this life, the full 
enjoyment comes in a heavenly future, where believers 
are with Christ beholding his glory (17: 24). Disciples 
will dwell with him in his Father's house (14: 3). The 
translation thither will be due to the personal coming 
of Christ. In John, as in the Synoptists, 'the coming' is 
represented as near (14: 18, 19) and as remote (21 : 22), 
at least after the life time of Peter. In John, too, 'the 
coming' is spoken of in more than one sense. He comes 
in the coming of the Spirit (14: 18, 19), and he will come 
apocalyptically at some distant time (21:22; 14:3). 
That Jesus thought of a 'coming,' independent of the 
Spirit's coming and independent of historical crises, 
seems evident from the expression 'the last day' (6: 39- 

54; 12:48). 

Christ consummates eternal life in the believer by 
raising him up at the last day (6 : 39, 40, 44, 54). Resur- 
rection is restoration to the disembodied spirit of a 
bodily organism, but it is also more. It belongs as a 
matter of course to those that believe in the Son. Physi- 



150 

cal death can have no power over possessors of eternal 
hfe (5:25; 11:25, 26). The resurrection of beUevers, 
then, is one way of teaching the truth, that, in spite of 
death, a person continues to be a person, that is, a soul 
with its appropriate organism, and that he experiences 
some good that is termed eternal life. 

On the other hand, those that do wickedly will con- 
tinue to be persons, but will experience evil, rather than 
good. They come under the adverse judgment of Christ 
in the last day (5 : 29). The nature of the condemnation 
is not given, nor is the penalty described by material 
images as in the Synoptists. It cannot be annihilation. 
The duration of the penalty is not expressed, but there 
is no hint of restoration. The conditions of the right- 
eous and wicked are diametrically opposed, and exe- 
gesis warrants no other conclusion than that they are 
unchangeable (5: 29). 

In John's Gospel judgment is both subjective and 
objective, a process and a consummating act. It is sub- 
jective, because it depends on the attitude of men to- 
wards the truth (3: 19), and because as Jesus revealed 
truth, he was Judge while on earth (5 : 30; 8: 16; 9: 30); 
it is a process, because it is a continuous application of 
tests, by which men reveal their character (9:39; 12: 
31). It is objective, because Jesus will sit in judgment 
on the moral quality of deeds done in life (5 : 28, 29) ; 
and the process culminates in a final decision, because 
men's attitude towards the truth Christ brought to the 
world will issue in fixity of character (12: 47, 48). 



DOCTRINES OF EARLY CHRISTIANS. 



DOCTRINES OF EARLY CHRISTIANS 

ACCORDIXG TO THE REPRESEXTATIOX OF 
ACTS I— XII. 

1. The Material. The prayers and speeches re- 
corded in Acts i-xii furnish the only sources of the 
earhest apostoHc doctrine. It is assumed that these 
speeches are historical, and reported with substantial 
accuracy. Any other assumption forces us to construct 
the earliest christian theology upon the ever shifting 
sands of critical results. The material to be investiga- 
ted is: i) Peter's missionary sermons, Acts 2: 14-36, 38- 
40; 3: 12-26; 10: 34-43.47; 2) Peter's defense before the 
Sanhedrin, 4:8-12, 19, 20; 5:29-32; 3) Stephen's ad- 
dress, 7:2-53; 4) Miscellaneous words, i: 16-22; 5:3. 
4, 9; 6: 2-4; 8: 20-23; 9: 34; 11 : 4-18; 5) The prayers of 
the church, i : 24, 25 ; 4: 24-30. 

2. Consciousness of the Church. The death of 
Jesus left the disciples desolate as orphans. Their grief 
kept them together for the few short days preceding the 
resurrection, which revived hope in the speedy restora- 
tion of Israel's kingdom (Acts 1:6). He did not clear 
away their misconception, but promised to qualify them 
to be his witnesses in Jerusalem and to the uttermost 
parts of the earth (1:8). The apostles knew their mis- 
sion, and so appointed in the place of Judas one who 

153 



154 

had the necessary quaUfications to witness to the pubHc 
ministry and triumphal resurrection of their Master (i : 
22). This is all we know of the thoughts of the believers 
before Pentecost. After Pentecost the apostolic teach- 
ing begins. 

Before gathering the truths taught by the Apos- 
tles, who represent the whole body of believers, we 
ought to note the consciousness of the church as re- 
flected in its prayers. Feeling themselves weak in com- 
parison with constituted authority of civil and ecclesias- 
tical rulers, they prayed to the omnipotent Creator of 
heaven and earth (4: 24) to aid them in the dangerous 
work of witnessing to the messiahship of Jesus. They 
believed that Jesus was the divinely appointed Messiah, 
from whom they received authority to work miracles in 
attestation of their message (4: 30). In their perplexity 
as to the choice of Judas' successor they prayed to Jesus 
who had chosen the Apostles, and attributed to him the 
power of knowing the heart's secrets, — a power that be- 
longs to God (i : 24; cf. 15 : 8). 

The central facts brought to light in these prayers 
are: i) Jesus is the Messiah, and 2) the disciples were 
doing God's service in testifying to that fact. 

3. The Form of Peter's Teaching. The be- 
lievers had to conciliate enemies and win adherents to 
the new faith. Their only instrument was the truthful- 
ness of their message, and they had to show it true by 
insisting that it was in accord with facts of history and 
God's purpose as revealed in Old Testament Scriptures. 
Hence they take pains to state the fulfilment of prophe- 



155 

cy in Judas' conduct (i: i6), in the sufferings of Jesus 
(3: i8), in the opposition of rulers (4: 25), in Jesus' 
resurrection (2: 25) and ascension (i : 34), in the Spirit's 
descent (2: 16), in the events connected with the begin- 
ning of Christianity (3: 24). and in the remission of sins 
through Jesus (10: 43). Xaturally the speeches have an 
apologetic form. Since the apology was to vindicate 
belief in the messiahship of Jesus of Xazareth. the 
earliest apostolic doctrines concern the person and 
work of the Alessiah. 

4. Person of the ^Messiah. The true human na- 
ture of the Messiah is emphasized by giving his human 
title and place of residence (2: 22; 10: 38). He is a man, 
however, of peculiar dignity, for he is the fore-ordained 
prophet like unto Moses (3: 22; cf. 7: 37). He was God's 
instrument of healing, because he had been anointed by 
the Holy Spirit (2: 22; 10: 38). Since the divine anoint- 
ing commissioned him to do specific work, he is 'Ser- 
vant' (3: 13, 26) and 'Holy Ser\^ant' (4: 2y, 30), i. e. the 
chosen One of Jehovah (Isa. 42: 1-3). He is the 'Holy 
and Just One,' the Messiah {2\2y\ 3: 14; 7: 52). 

It is not surprising that God raised Jesus from the 
grave, since death could have no dominion over him as 
the Holy One (2: 32; 3: 15; 10:40). Xot only was 
the crucified Jesus released from death, but he is exalt- 
ed at the right hand of God (2: 33 ; 5 : 31). In this way 
only can the descent of the Spirit be explained (2: 33). 
He is therefore the royal ^Messiah associated with God 
in the government of the imiverse (2: 33: 5: 31), and is 
rightly called Prince (5: 31) and Lord (2: 36). In con- 



156 

sequence, his rule is not confinea to Israel, but extends 
over all (lo: 36). 

The historical appearance and resurrection and as- 
cension of Jesus are in fulfilment of prophecy, but some 
predictions are yet to be fulfiled (3: 19-26). The Mes- 
siah's stay in heaven is therefore temporary. He will 
return to bring the blessings of messianic times (3 : 20, 
21), in which only those who repent will share (2: 17-21 ; 
3: 20). He will come to judge both the living and the 
dead (10: 42). Because he is Prince and Judge, salva- 
tion can be found in him alone (4: 11). 

5. Work of the Messiah. The work which the 
Messiah was specially expected to do was to bestow the 
Holy Spirit (Matt. 3: 11), and the ascended Jesus has 
done this (Acts 2 : 17; 3 : 24). As a consequence all con- 
ditions and classes of men receive endowments granted 
in the olden times to favored ones only (2: 17, 18). 

As Jesus is the Mediator of the Holy Spirit (2: 33), 
he is the Mediator of salvation (10: 43), and can be ap- 
propriately called Savior (5 : 31). The salvation secured 
by Christ concerns body and soul, for he is the author of 
life in the widest sense conceivable (3: 15). The apos- 
tolic power to heal the sick was due to faith in Jesus as 
the Messiah (3: 16; 4: 10), who in heaven exercises 
healing power on earth (9: 34). 

But bodily healing was not co-ordinate with spirit- 
ual healing, for miracles were evidental. They were 
God's method of witnessing to the character and office 
of his Servant Jesus (4: 30). That Jesus' saving power is 
more concerned with moral soundness than with physi- 



157 

cal well-being is evident from the fact, that he is called 
Savior, because he gives the disposition to repent and 
grants forgiveness of sins (5: 31). 

Salvation is both negative and positive. Its nega- 
tive character is escape from punishment awaiting a 
crooked generation (2 : 40) ; its positive character is 
turning from sin (3:23), receiving forgiveness of sins 
(3- I9i 5*31) ^^d experiencing the blessings accom- 
panying the return of the Messiah (3: 20). 

The relation of the gift of the Holy Spirit to salva- 
tion is not brought out. The fact prominently empha- 
sized is, that the Spirit by special manifestations testi- 
fied to the truth of the gospel. For example, the earli- 
est disciples were enabled to speak with tongues (2: 4), 
and to speak boldly and to work miracles (4: 31); Peter 
was qualified to make his defense (4: 8) ; Stephen and his 
fellows to do their assigned work effectively (6: 3, 8); 
Saul to do the works of an apostle (9: 17); Stephen to 
see a vision (7: 55) ; the Samaritans to do extraordinary 
works (8: I7fif.). In all these instances it is assumed that 
the Spirit had communicated a new life, witnessed to 
the forgiveness of sins, and was carrying on his sancti- 
fying work in the life. This regenerating and sanctify- 
ing work of the Spirit characterizes the present dispen- 
sation and is for all times and nations (2: 38). 

6. Conditions of Receiving Messianic Bless- 
ings. In order to receive forgiveness and the fruits of 
the Spirit, there is need of repentance and baptism (2: 
38). Repentance is turning from a former sinful state 
(3: 19, 26), or from a particular sinful act (8: 22; 2: 28). 



158 

In apostolic times the sin of sins was the crucifixion of 
Jesus, the Holy and Righteous One (3: 15). Repent- 
ance, then, was renunciation of participation in that 
crime and determination to accept the crucified Naza- 
rene as Messiah (2:38; 10:43). Acknowledgment of 
Jesus as Messiah is called faith, and is reckoned as an 
act of obedience to Go.d which insures the gift of the 
Spirit (5: 31). Attachment to Christ through faith en- 
abled the apostles to work miracles (3: 16). 

Confession of faith in the messiahship of Jesus 
must be attested by baptism. Baptism is the outw^ard 
expression in symbol of an inward conviction, so that 
baptized upon the name of Jesus Christ (2 : 38) and be- 
lieving on Jesus Christ (10: 43; 11: 27) are practicaUy 
identical acts. The act of baptism gathered into itself 
the whole apostolic belief 8(: 36; 9: 18). Its value is 
seen in the fact that it must precede the bestowment of 
the Holy Spirit (2: 38; 8: 14-17). The single exception 
(10:44-48) proves the importance of baptism, since 
Peter would not administer the rite, until he had the 
clearest evidence that the gentiles must be received on 
the same terms as the Jews. 

Repentance is described as man's act (2: 38; 3: 19; 
8: 22); he is urged to save himself from doom (2: 40). 
On the other hand, God calls repentance into exercise 
(11: 18) by raising up Jesus to be Prince and Savior. 
That is, God furnishes the motive that induces men to 
repent (3: 26; 5: 31). Moreover, the faith by which the 
disciples were enabled to work miracles was given by 
Christ (3: 16). 



159 

7- Extent of Salvatiox. As Jesus had been 
sent to Israel (lo: 36), so his Apostles preach to their 
countrymen (10: 42). They do this both by natural in- 
clination and in obedience to the command of Christ 
(1:8). Jesus is the Savior of Israel (5 : 31) ; and the de- 
scendants of the prophets are the natural recipients of 
messianic benefits (3: 25, 26). But salvation was not for 
Israel only; it was for Israel first (3: 26). Here is inti- 
mated what Peter expressly declared at Pentecost (2: 
39). The promise was to the Jewish hearers of Peter, 
to their descendants and to the gentiles. Peter ex- 
plained that those afar off receive the promise, because 
God calls them to him, and that as many as receive it 
are included in the divine purpose. His statement at 
Pentecost is not inconsistent with his reluctance to re- 
ceive Cornelius (10: 34, 35). In the former case the 
Apostle has in mind the fact of salvation: in the latter, 
the method of receiving it. At the house of Cornelius 
he learns that the terms are the same for all nations. 
Faith and repentance admit Jew and gentile alike into 
the kingdom of God. 

8. Orgaxizatiox of Christiaxs. Jesus did not 
command his disciples to organize the society that sub- 
secjuently came to be known as the church. He knew it 
would form naturally and by necessity, and so spoke of 
it as future (Alatt. 16: 18). ]Men having a view of God 
differing from that of their fellows and cultivating a 
form of righteousness superior to that of their accred- 
ited teachers must in course of time separate from them, 
and form a new religious community. Love for their 



160 

Master and for each other was the bond of union. Per- 
secution and desire for each other's sympathy and help- 
rendered the new body compact. The disciples of Jesus 
during his Hfetime became the members of the church 
after Pentecost. 

I.) Relation of the Members to One Another. 
There is nothing said about the formal institution of the 
church. The first time we find the word it is applied 
to an organization already in existence (5: 11). The 
early Christians were brought together by common in- 
terests (2: 46). All personal and national feelings gave 
way before emotions of joy in experiencing God's re- 
deeming love. They formed a new family (i : 16; 6: 3; 
12 : 17) ; they had meals in common and gave to the sup- 
port of the brethren (2: 45; 6: i). Some of the rich sold 
their property in order to aid the needy members of the 
family, but this was not obligatory (5:4). 

In addition to observing the stated hours of prayer 
in the temple they assembled at various places (2 : 46) 
to pray, to listen to apostolic instruction, and by break- 
ing bread to commemorate their last meal with Jesus 
(2:42). 

2.) Oiificers. The first Christians had no pre-con- 
ceived plan of organization. The Apostles taught, and 
their right to do so was not questioned. Officers arose 
as occasion required. "The external body grew as the 
internal soul developed." The first recorded occasion 
that demanded some sort of organization was the com- 
plaint of Grecian Jews against the Hebrews concerning 
distribution of alms. The Apostles had been attending 



161 

to this (4: 37; 5: 2), but increase in the number of be- 
lievers made this task burdensome and prevented them 
doing the special work for which they alone were quali- 
fied. Hence, "seven" were appointed to attend to the 
benevolent affairs of the church (6: 1-8). These are not 
called deacons, but 'the seven' (21:8); yet, since their 
function is described by the verb 'to deacon,' and since 
the noun 'deacon' occurs later, it is not unreasonable to 
suppose that the seven were named deacons. Subse- 
quently one of them is called 'evangelist' (8: 5, 26; 21: 
8). Possibly Philip's duties as alms-distributer had end- 
ed because of the persecution at Jerusalem (8: i). 
Somewhat later in the history 'elders' received the gifts 
of the church (11 : 30), so that they may have assumed 
the duties formerly performed by the Seven. The origin 
of the ofihce of elder is obscure. In all probability they 
derived their name from the elders of the Jewish syna- 
gogue, and their business was to look after the external 
affairs of the church. 

3.) Relation of the Christians to Israel. The early 
disciples differed from their countrymen mainly in be- 
lieving that Jesus was the Messiah. Hence, we find 
them in the Temple at the stated hours of prayer (2: 46; 
3:1), attending Jewish feasts and practising some of the 
rites of Judaism (21 : 26) : They were a company with- 
in a company: strict Jews, yet more than Jews. Na- 
tional feeling impelled the disciples to address unbe- 
lieving Jews as fellow Israelites and heirs of messianic 
blessings (3:24-26; 5:31). The national crime of re- 
jecting Jesus was due to ignorance (3: 17-19), there- 
fore there w^as opportunity for repentance. 



162 

The disciples had favor with the people (2: 47; 5: 
26). Their miracles and pure life won increasing num- 
bers to their fellowship and at the same time produced 
feeling of awe in the multitudes (5: 12, 13). Soon, how- 
ever, opposition of the rulers was aroused, but opposi- 
tion was based more on disciples' proclamation of the 
resurrection of Jesus than on their belief in his mes- 
siahship. Thus is explained the fact that Sadduces 
rather than Pharisees were instigators of persecution 
(4: 1-22). In fact, it was the Pharisee Gamaliel who 
spoke on behalf of the Apostles. 

But we cannot assume that the speculative doc- 
trine of the resurrection alone influenced the opposi- 
tion, nor can we imagine that the Pharisees as a body 
favored the new doctrine. There was latent antagon- 
ism between pharisaic teaching and apostolic preach- 
ing that needed only occasion to break into fiery per- 
secution. There must come a time when the disciples 
must define their attitude towards the Mosaic law. The 
inherent opposition of pharisaism to the beliefs of the 
early Christians is seen in the bitter antagonism of Saul, 
the typical Pharisee, to the christian truth. 

The occasion of the outbreak was Stephen's 
preaching. Popular thought did not distinguish the 
destruction of the Temple as the end of Jewish national 
existence from its destruction as the close of one period 
of the divine government of the world to usher in an- 
other. Of course, Stephen's speech was misunderstood 
and interpreted as blasphemy. The consequent per- 
secution caused the dispersion of the disciples. Hos- 
tility became persistent and determined. 



163 

4-) Relatiox to the Gextile World. The 
preaching of the gospel to gentiles was hardly a prac- 
tical question at first. Jewish prejudices could not be 
shaken off at once. Peter had to be prepared by miracle 
to go to Cornelius. Even after the earliest Christians 
believed that God is no respecter of persons, they 
preached to none but Jews (ii: 19). 



THE TEACHING OF JAMES. 



THE TEACHING OF JAMES. 

Since James is ethical and practical, rather than 
doctrinal and speculative, the fundamental christian 
beliefs do not appear in his epistle. He assumes that 
they already exist in the minds of his readers, and uses 
them as the basis of his exhortation. 

I. God. Like a Jew trained in the ethics of the 
Old Testament, James grounds his reasons for right 
conduct in the nature of Goa. It is not enough to be a 
monotheist; the monotheist must believe that his God 
is Lawgiver and Judge, whose sentences of judgment 
inevitably issue in life or death (4: 12). Because the 
one Judge is the Lord of all power and might in heaven 
and on earth, the oppressed poor may have confidence 
in his ability to deliver, and the oppressor that feels se- 
cure in his own power and wealth must expect a day of 
slaughter (5:4, 5). 

God is the only conceivable Good, who cannot be 
swerved from doing what is right, and therefore cannot 
be the occasion of moral evil in men, but is alone the 
source of gifts that perfectly meet the needs of those 
whom he benefits (i: 13-18). As the supremely Good 
he demands that he shall be the measure of human con- 
duct (i : 20). 

God is the fountain of wisdom to whom men must 
167 



168 

go, if they wish to obtain discernment to conduct them- 
selves for efTfective teachers of righteousness (3: 13-18). 

God is described as Father (i: 17, 27; 3:9), who 
showed his grace in introducing the poor into a new 
Hfe and setting them apart for himself as first-fruits (i : 
18). Like a father he is 'Very pitiful, and of tender 
mercy" (5: 11), and so gives unconditionally and un- 
grudgingly and uncomplainingly (1:5). His love is so 
intense, that it provokes him to jealousy, when he be- 
holds a rival for man's affections; yet, his jealousy does 
not prevent him from bestowing his benefits still more 
abundantly (4: 5, 6). 

2. Man. In his earthly existence man has a two- 
fold relationship. He is in relations with God by virtue 
of the divine image that he inalienably bears (3 : 9) and 
with the world by reason of his bodily organism. The 
former fact makes him a moral being capable of exper- 
iencing the joy of life with God beyond the grave (i : 12, 
21:5: 20); the latter makes his life on earth as fleeting 
"as a vapor, that appears for a little time, and then van- 
ishes" (4: 14). The body comes into effective relations 
with its environment by the instrumentality of the hu- 
man spirit (2 : 26). By reason of the dual nature of man 
there are two claimants for his afifection — God and the 
world. The power to choose and the feeling of obliga- 
tion that the right must De chosen are personified as 
God's indwelling Spirit jealously loving, in order to win 
man from the blandishments of the unlawful Lover — 
the world (4: 4, 5). On the other hand, man finds in 
himself desires, — desire to satisfy the sensuous appe- 



169 

tites, and to gratify the impulses for power that comes 
through intellectual superiority or possession of wealtli, 
and he finds that his environment, that is, the world, 
alone gives opportunity to gratify them. He is, there- 
fore, tempted to think much of the world, to love it for 
whatever of pleasure and of power it occasions(i: 14; 

4:1,4)- 

Having two possible objects of choice, man must 
regulate his conduct by wisdom. He may be at a loss 
to decide what is wise, since he wishes the favor of God 
and of the world, and so may become "a. man of two 
minds, unstable in all his ways" (1:8). If he chooses to 
work peace in order to produce a harvest of righteous- 
ness, he shows that he is guided by the wisdom that God 
gives; but if he prefers jealousy and party spirit and tu- 
mult and bad deeds, he derives his wisdom from the 
world, the sphere of the finite, the sensuous and the de- 
moniacally wicked (4: 13-18). 

Since James is thoroughly practical, he thinks of 
sin as the overt act (5 : 15-20), but he also furnishes hints 
that show that he thought of sin as lying back of and 
giving character to the act. In the personal history of 
each man, desire that lurks in him as a sensuous being is 
the temptress that induces to sin (i: 14). The reason 
passes favorable judgment on desire's solicitation, and 
sin is the result ; and sin fully developed unites with the 
will to produce death as their monstrous offspring (i: 
15). The writer does not call desire sin, but says that de- 
sire takes advantage of man's environment to make his 
inherent sinfulness manifest itself in worldly enjoyments 



170 

(4: 2-4), unbridled speech (3: 2-12), factiousness (3: 14- 
16), godless self-confidence (4: 13-17), and oppression 
{2:6; 5:4). 

James does not give the origin of sin, but says that 
it cannot be referred to God (i : 13-17). He assumes 
that it is universal, for the world, the whole mass of 
mankind, is opposed to God (i : 27; 4:4); and he also 
assumes that sin in the visible world is connected with 
a kingdom of darkness in the invisible world (3: 15; 4: 
7; 2: 19). 

Conceive of man as constantly carrying within 
himself a seducing temptress, as enticed by the bland- 
ishments of the world and as pursued by the impersona- 
tion of evil, and he must be deemed morally dead. A 
new life must be imparted by the will of the omnipotent 
God (1:18). 

3. Salvation. James wrote to men that had ex- 
perienced a great change in disposition and in destiny. 
They had esteemed themselves poor, because in the 
judgment of the world their outward circumstances 
were adverse, but now they know themselves rich, be- 
cause they are heirs of God's kingdom (2: 5); they had 
been aware of no special relation to God, but now they 
believe that they are consecrated to God as a special 
possession, because of his begetting power (1:18); 
they had been traveling a way whose end is death (5: 
20), but now the reward awaiting them is the crown of 
life (i : 13). Two facts lay back of their present condi- 
tion, viz. God's gratuitous act and the instrumental 
agency of the truth. Of these two facts James' readers 



171 

had no doubt. "Ye know this, my beloved brethren" 

(1:19). 

The words, "of his own will be brought us forth," 
are nothing more nor less than an affirmation of the 
doctrine of salvation by grace, and they state that Chris- 
tians have actually experienced what Jesus said must 
happen to every one who wishes to enter the kingdom 
of God (Jno. 3: 3-8). The moral change described as 
a 'bringing forth,' i. e., entrance on a life gotten from 
the Father, the Giver of every good and perfect gift, is 
historically described as a choice or selection of some 
from others, in order to give them special benefits (2: 
5). As in the past it was a fact that Jehovah chose Is- 
rael from among other peoples, so again it is a fact of 
history that the poor are the objects of God's electing 
love. The apostle does not mean to intimate that the 
poor were selected just because they were poor, but he 
simply states a fact that both Jesus and Paul observed, 
that in the earliest years of Christianity disciples came 
mainly from the so-called 'lower classes.' He distinctly 
says that the promise of God is limited to those poor 
that love him (2: 5). 

The phrase 'Vith the word of truth" conveys the 
same idea that Paul enforces in the questions: "And 
how are they to believe in him of whom they heard not? 
And how are they to hear without a preacher" (Rom. 
10: 14). The word of truth is the complete revelation 
of God's will as given by Jesus Christ. It is the gospel 
message, which not only sets forth divine requirements, 



172 

but also divine assurance of saving grace, and so works 
in man the willingness to submit to its conditions. 

In effecting moral transformation God does not 
violently constrain the human will, nor does the word of 
truth have any magical efihciency. God and the truth 
are able to save, but their ability is limited by man's re- 
lation to them (i: 2i; 4: 12). James does not say ex- 
plicitly what must be man's attitude towards God be- 
fore he can hope for salvation, but since he does say 
that faith is that which constitutes the Christian's wealth 
(2: 5), and that the christian life is one of dependence 
upon God, it is fair to assume that he believed that a re- 
ceptive and trustful state of mind called faith is the 
human condition of God's regenerating power. 

The apostle more explicitly states man's relation 
to the word of truth. He assumes that the implanted 
word cannot save, unless the soil is in fit condition. The 
man who expects to save his life from death at the judg- 
ment must determine to put away malice and wicked- 
ness, in order to furnish a heart suitable for the germi- 
nation, growth and fruitfulness of the world. This is a 
restatement of the truth Jesus taught by the parable of 
The Sower. 

While James views salvation as begun in this life, 
he nevertheless emphasizes its completion in the king- 
dom of God (2: 5). It is still in the future (i : 12, 21), 
and will not come until Jesus Christ returns to reward 
the patient and condemn the murmurer (5: 7-1 1). 

4. The Christian Life. Christians believe and 
act as though they are bondservants of God and Jesus 



173 

Christ (i: i). They are not content with holding a 
dogma about God, however good that may be in itself 
((2: 19), but love him supremely (4: 4; cf. i: 12, 2: 5), 
and have such unswerving confidence in him (i : 6), that 
they endure patiently whatever trials he may permit (i : 
12). They submit themselves so unreservedly to God 
(4: 7), that in forming business projects they take him 
into account, (4: 13) in times of testing they seek his 
COUNSEL (i: 5), in affliction they pray for his help and 
cornfort, in prosperity they sing songs of praise to him 
(5: 13), and in asking for temporal good they do not 
wish to use it to gratify selfish desires (4: 3). Christians 
live humbly before God, as is befitting the weak and ig- 
norant and sinful in the presence of the strong and wise 
and holy (4: 10; cf. Matt. 23: 12). 

But that which distinguished James' readers from 
pious Jews was the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ, 
the Lord of glory (2: i). As Israelites were marked 
off from gentiles by having the name of Jehovah called 
upon them, because they belonged to him (Jer. 14:9; 
cf. 7: 9), so Christians were separated from their fellow- 
men by having the name of Christ called upon them, — 
a name they w^ere not ashamed to bear, because it was 
worthy (2:7). 

From the many points of contact of James' teach- 
ing with that of Jesus, it is fair to assume that James 
thought of Jesus as the Giver and Interpreter of the 
perfect law of liberty (1:25), and therefore accepted 
him as Sovereign of his conscience. He certainly says, 
that he is a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ as well as a 



174 

slave to God(i:i). He applies to both the epithet 
Judge (4: 12; 5 : 9). This is remarkable, when we recall 
that James in this way exalts to the throne of the uni- 
verse. One whom he knew walked the earth in human 
form, and ascribes to him judicial functions which a de- 
vout Jew ascribed to Jehovah alone. In James' thought 
Jesus Christ is Lord as Jehovah is Lord. 

In his exaltation Jesus restores the sick through 
faith in him (5: 14). His stay in heaven is but tempo- 
rary, for he will come to punish the wicked (5: 7-1 1) 
and give the righteous the crown of life (i : 12). True, 
God is said to give the crown of life, and Christ is said 
to be the Judge of the wicked, but since the writer calls 
both God and Christ Judge, he no doubt had in mind 
Paul's thought, that God will judge the world through 
Jesus Christ (Acts 17: 31). 

The christian life of faith in God and in Jesus 
Christ gives rise to christian conduct, as certainly as life 
in the body gives acti^aty to its members (2: 26). Sav- 
ing faith must show vitality by works, the signs of life. 
James is not thinking of 'works of law' as condition of 
receiving God's favor, but of works of faith. He is 
contrasting a faith that is content with holding a dogma 
(2: 19) with a faith that prompts to beneficence (2: I4f.) 
He admits that faith is the condition of justification, but 
denies that it alone is, for standing alone it is dead, and 
can have no efficacy (2: 26). Faith is the spring of ac- 
tion, the motive for work. The apostle illustrates this 
principle by citing the example of Abraham, who de- 
monstrated the existence of faith by the act of offering 



175 

Isaac; likewise, Rahab proved that she had faith by the 
act of shielding the spies. God justifies by such works, 
and by no other. 

Faith and works are not independent principles of 
religious life, but are inter-related as organically as 
spirit and body (2: 26). Works without faith are value- 
less; faith without works is vain. Works demonstrate 
the existence and activity of faith ; faith gives religious 
character to works. Therefore a man of faith endures 
trials (1:22), resists wrath (i: 19), puts away wicked- 
ness (1:21), is actively benevolent (2: 14), and thinks 
himself a sinner, if he neglects to do good (4: 17). So 
interwoven are man's relations to God and to fellowmen, 
that James regards practical beneficence and purity of 
character as the ritual of the christian life (i : 27). Union 
of faith and conduct conditions acceptable prayer (5: 

15, 16). 

James thinks of conduct as regulated by a revealed 
standard. As God gave a law to his ancient people, so 
he has given a law to his elect poor, which must be kept 
in order to secure his approbation (i : 25 ; 4: 12). This 
new law is the revelation of God's grace in Jesus Christ 
as made known through the gospel message. It re- 
leases from the bondage of sin, and is therefore the law 
of liberty; it gives the rule of the perfect life, and is 
therefore a perfect law (i : 25). This is the law that must 
be earnestly and continuously looked into, in order to 
experience the joy of christian service. This is so, be- 
cause christian works are done for the joy of doing 
them, and not for motives outside of or beyond the 



176 

%vorks themselves. Love is the spring of conduct, and 
therefore labor is not irksome. James thus elaborates 
the thought that Paul condenses in the words, 'faith 
working through love' (Gal. 5:6). 

As this perfect law is the instrument of God in ini- 
tiating the christian life (i : 18) and the means by which 
it is perfected, so it is the standard by which free men 
will be judged (2: 12). 



THE TEACHING OF PETER. 



THE TEACHING OF PETER. 

(THE FIRST EPISTLE.) 

Peter does not aim to teach new doctrine, but to 
establish confidence in that already received and to 
nourish the christian life. His exhortations rest on well 
understood beliefs and the general acceptance of un- 
doubted facts. For example, the suffering and resur- 
rection of Jesus are cited incidentally as motives for 
right conduct. 

I. Christianity and Judaism. Peter resembles 
James in the practical character of his writing and in his 
use of the Old Testament. Both regard Christianity as 
the realization of Judaism, but in a diiTerent way. James 
thinks of it as "the perfect law of liberty;" Peter thinks 
of it as the fulfilment of prophecy, not merely the ful- 
filment of Old Testament predictions, but the consum- 
mation of Israel's history. Christianity is in fact what 
Judaism was designed to be. Just as Israel was an 
elect nation (Dt. y\()\ Isa. 43: 20) and its promise of 
obedience ratified by the sprinkling of blood (Ex. 24: 
1-8), so Christians are elect and sanctified in order to be 
obedient, and are recipients of pardon by the sprink- 
ling of the blood of Christ (i : 1,2). They are therefore 
holy and God's special possession (2:5, 9; cf. Ex. 19: 

179 



180 

6; Dt. "J '.6). As priests only could draw near to God, 
because they were holy, so believers in Christ draw 
near to God as a holy priesthood (2:5; 3: 18); and as 
priests served God as King, Christians do the same, and 
are therefore a royal priesthood (2:9). They perform 
priestly service when they offer acceptable conduct (2: 
5). As Israel was Jehovah's house (Ex. 29: 45), so be- 
lievers form a temple in which God makes his abode (2 : 
5). Of this house Christ is the living stone, the head of 
the corner, rejected by some and accepted by others, ac- 
cording to prophecy (2: 4-8; cf. Isa. 8: 14; 28: 16). As 
the covenant people conceived themselves to be so- 
journers and strangers and pilgrims (Gen. 23: 4; 47: 9; 
Ps. 39: 12; Acts 7: 6), so the followers of Christ are to 
regard themselves as sojourners, abiding but a limited 
time in a hostile world (I: i, 13, 17: 2: 11). The figure 
of Israel as God's flock, over which God appointed shep- 
herds (Ezek. 34: 11-19; Jer. 31: 10), is applied to the 
christian community. God is the Proprietor of the be- 
lieving flock, and Christ is the Chief Shepherd (2 : 25 ; 
5 : 2-4). The promise of the new covenant in which God 
will be Father (Jer. 31:9) finds its consummation in 
Christianity, where believers are sons, because they are 
obedient and have the moral features of God their Fath- 
er (i: 14, 15). 

In this way, Peter states his belief that the christian 
church is the legitimate heir of the promises made to 
Israel, and is therefore the true Israel of God. He 
includes in the church gentiles, "who once were not a 
people, but now are God's people; who had not ob- 



181 

tained mercy, but now have obtained mercy" (2: 11). 
Peter had no interest in Jewish Christians, because they 
had been Jews, nor in gentile christians, because they 
had beea gentiles, but he has intense interest in both, 
because they were Christians. "Peace be to you all, 
that are in Christ" (5: 14). The transference of the ful- 
filment of Old Testament promises from Israel to the 
church is not an arbitrary decree of God, but is in line 
with God's predetermined plan of salvation and occas- 
ioned by Israel's rejection of Jesus Christ. The church 
does not take the place of Israel, but is Israel, in the 
sense that it is God's people, elect according to his fore- 
knowledge (1:2). The salvation for which christians 
hope and which they now enjoy is that of which the pro- 
phets spoke (i : 10-12), and the penalty of non-participa- 
tion in the messianic salvation has been appointed dis- 
obedient Israel. Peter's thought is in exact accord with 
Paul's, "And if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's 
seed, heirs according to the promise" (Gal. 3: 29). 

2. Relation of Peter's Doctrine to His Ex- 
perience. There are so many evident allusions to Jesus' 
teaching and so many reminiscences of experiences 
with Christ, that it may fairly be supposed that they oc- 
casioned Peter's way of stating his doctrine. To get 
the full significance of his method of presenting truth 
the following facts must be kept in mind: First, Peter 
had been a pious and enthusiastic Jew earnestly ex- 
pecting the Messiah (Jno. i : 40-42) ; second, he had 
been an intimate companion of Jesus, had believed him 
to be the Messiah, had witnessed his death and had seen 



182 

him after the resurrection; third, he had experienced 
many evidences of the watchcare of God and of the as- 
cended Lord (Acts 4: 1-31; 5:29-42; 9:32-43; 11:4- 
18; 12: 1-17). Inevitably, his Jewish thinking about 
God, salvation and the Messiah was supplemented by 
the new revelation in Jesus and by reflection on the 
facts of Christ's sinless life, unexpected death and still 
more unexpected resurrection. 

3. Doctrine of God. Like a true Hebrew, Peter 
thought of God's attributes as having practical relig- 
ious value for man. If he is holy, it is that he may be 
the standard for human conduct (i : 16); if he is Crea- 
tor, it is that he may be the support of dependent souls 
(4: 19); and if he is Sovereign, it is that he may call out 
of darkness into marvellous light and guard those 
called unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last 
time (2: 9; 1 : 5). It was a commonplace of Jewish the- 
ology, too, that the holy and omnipotent Sovereign is 
gracious (4: 10; 5: 10, 12), merciful (2: 10) and long- 
suffering (33: 20). But Peter's conception of God was 
influenced by the teaching of Jesus. He remembered 
that his Master often spoke of God as Father in a pecu- 
liar way, and so he called Jehovah "the God and 
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:3); he recollected 
that Jesus had also taught him the fatherly care of 
God, and the lesson was so well learned that he called 
God ''Father" (i: 17, cf. i: 2). The apostle's exhorta- 
tion to cast all anxieties on God, because he cares for the 
anxious (5 : 6), could have come only from one who had 



183 

listened again and again to Jesus' teaching concerning 
God's care for the sparrow and raven and plant. 

Peter is so wholly dependent on God's unmerited 
love for his prospect of eternal glory, that he cannot 
conceive of any manifestation of grace apart from God 
(4: 10:5:^10). 

It must be noted that Peter did not allow the no- 
tion that God is Father to blind him to the fact, that he 
is Judge also, and therefore the proper attitude towards 
the Father Judge is not that of flippant intimacy, but of 
reverent dread. If he winningly invites anxious hearts 
to God's fatnerly embrace, he also warns that miscon- 
duct cannot escape God's fatherlv condemnation (i: 

17)- ■ 

The apostle gives a hint that there was a time in his 
life when the teaching of the prophets and of Jesus 
seemed to be false. God had practically ceased to exist ; 
or, if he did exist, he was not such a One as he had been 
taught to believe in. Peter had seen his sinless Friend 
and Teacher put to death by sinful men, and he could 
hardly help concluding that there was no Person guid- 
ing the world to moral ends; he had seen the one whom 
he believed was the Messiah laid in the grave, and c-f 
course he lost hope in the good promised to Israel. For 
awhile the apostle was faithless and hopeless, because he 
was temporarily godless. But God had vindicated him- 
self Dy raising Jesus from the dead. By this act God 
again declared that he was worthy of confidence and the 
ground of hope. It was the resurrection that led Peter 
to reenthrone God in his life (1:21). 



184 

The net result of Peter's training and experience 
was that he could say of God: ''And the God of all 
grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, af- 
ter ye have suffered a little while, will himself perfect, 
establish, strengthen, settle you. To him be the might, 
forever and ever" (5: 10, 11). 

4. Doctrine of Christ. Peter had followed Jesus 
with the conviction that he was the Messiah and that 
he would secure for Israel the good promised by the 
prophets; but as a Jew he could not comprehend the 
idea of a suffering Christ (Matt. 16: 22). _ It is intelligi- 
ble, that in an hour of disappointment and fright and 
perplexity, Peter could deny that he had ever known the 
prisoner Jesus or had ever confessed him to be the Mes- 
siah (Matt. 26: 69-75). One thing was certain, that the 
apostle was an eye-witness of the unexpected suffering 
of Jesus (5 : i), and he no doubt felt as the two travellers 
to Emmaus felt, when they said, "But we were hoping 
that it was he who was about to redeem Israel" (L. 24: 
21). Hope had been his, but it is dead, and he is in a 
moral stupor. The one in whose companionship he 
had felt the thrill of a new life (Jno. 6: 68) is dead, and 
no hope strengthens moral energy. 

But not long is Peter in despair. The one for 
whom he mourned met him (L. 24: 34, cf. Mk. 16: 7), 
and the Apostle remembers years afterwards the new 
view of Christ and of the messianic glory he obtained 
by that meeting. He recalls the new moral energy that 
enabled him to face Jewish authority undauntedly, and 
attributes it to the risen Jesus. "Blessed, be the God and 



]85 

Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his 
abundant mercy begot us again to a hving hope 
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" 

(1:3)- 

Remembering how Jesus had attracted him and 
mastered him, recalHng his despair at the death of his 
Master, recohecting the joyous hope begotten by the 
resurrection and ascension of Jesus, Peter could not 
help having the highest possible conception of Christ's 
person and work. So certainly had it been demon- 
strated that Jesus is the Christ, that the word 'Christ' is 
no longer a mere title, but has become a proper name. 
The One whom Peter knew in Galilee is not Jesus 'the 
Christ,' but Jesus Christ (i : 2, 3, 7, 13; 2: 21 ; 4: 11), or 
Christ (i : II, 19; 2: 21 ; 3: 15, 18; 4: i, 13, 14; 5: i ; 10, 

14). 

In his earthly career Jesus was sinless (i: 18, 19; 
2:22, 23; 3: 18). His appearance in time was but a 
manifestation in the course of history of a person that 
had a prior existence (i: 20). During the Old Testa- 
ment period he had been actively interested in the plan 
of redemption, for he had sent the Spirit to testify by 
the prophets of the suffering and glory that awaited 
the Christ (i : 11). He is now exalted at the right hand 
of God, and there has absolute rule (3:22). His stay 
there will be temporary, for he will come again in glory 
(1:7, 13; 4: 13; 5: 1,4), in order to judge the living and 
the dead (4: 5). He is Lord (i : 3; 2: 13; 3: 15). 

Peter believed in the deity of Jesus Christ. 
He joins Christ with God and the Spirit in the 



1S6 

work of redemption (1:2); he applies to him Old Tes- 
tament quotations referring to Jehovah (2: 3, cf. Ps. 34: 
8; 3: 5, cf. Isa. 8: 13); he gives to him the divine pre- 
rogative of protecting the immortal soul (2: 25) ; and he 
thinks of him as being the sphere in which christian life 
is lived (3: 16; 5: 10, 15). If Christians are 'in Christ' 
and 'in God,' it is because both Christ and God are the 
source and support of life. 

Peter does not define the relation existing between 
God and Jesus, except in the words, ''God and Father 
of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:3). To be true to his 
lofty view of the Messiah, we must put as much mean- 
ing as possible into these words. They imply a rela- 
tionship more unique than that Jesus was simply God's 
theocratic son. 

The facts of Christ's death and resurrection en- 
abled Peter to solve the Jewish paradox of a suffering 
Messiah. History had taught him that the Christ could 
die and also reign in glory, because glory followed suf- 
fering (i: 11). The apostle began to understand the 
divine plan, and saw in Jesus' sufifering God's predeter- 
mined method of saving believing men (i: 11, 12, 20; 
2: 3f.) Involved in a changed view of the Messiah was 
a changed view of messianic work. No longer did 
Peter think of deliverance from Roman tyranny, for he 
himself had experienced deliverance from sin; he no 
more prized earthly splendor, for he was looking for a 
heavenly inheritance. This constant emphasis- on the 
moral and religious character of the messianic deliver- 
ance can be explained only on the supposition that the 



187 

apostle had felt himself freed from the grip of moral evil. 

Since our doctrine of salvation depends on our 
doctrine of sin, it is necessary to develop Peter's con- 
ception of sin, if we expect to understand his view of re- 
demption. He does not formulate a doctrine of sin, yet 
his incidental references are so many and presented 
from so many points of view, that it is possible to con- 
struct a fairly well connected system of belief. Peter 
does not trace sin to its source, but assumes that it may 
be found outside of humanity. He thinks that there is a 
personal Devil, who endeavors to seduce men (5:8). In 
man sin is an inherent vitiating principle, which mani- 
fests itself in desires that are ungodly (4: i, 2). When 
these desires impel to action, outbreaking sins follow 
(2: 11; 4:3), which make a conduct devoid of moral 
worth (i: 18). This vain manner of life is transmitted 
from father to son, so that it is not simply individual but 
racial (i : 18). As a matter of course, men are wander- 
ing like lost sheep (2 : 25), are in darkness (2 : 9), and are 
in bondage (i: 18). They lead wicked lives (2: i), are 
evil doers (2: 12, 14), ungodly and sinful (4: 18). Sin 
pollutes the soul (i : 22). 

Peter thinks of sin as also hostility to God (4: 18), 
and therefore transgression of law, or disobedience (3 : 
20). This involves guilt and punishment (2: 20). The 
sins committed in the pre-christian state are called sins 
of ignorance (i: 14), because they arose from lack of 
knowledge of Christ and salvation. The sin for which 
there is no excuse is the refusal to believe in Christ 



188 

(2: 7; 17)- This refusal is disobedience and will be pun- 
ished. 

The two-fold view of sin as morally defiling and as 
transgression of law explains Peter's two-fold concep- 
tion of Christ's atonement as cleansing and expiatory. 

Since Peter wrote to Christians who were suffering, 
it was natural to urge them to take the suffering Christ 
as their example (4: i). If they suffer for well doing, 
they endure only what Jesus did (3: 17, 18), and instead 
of complaining and reviling, they ought to be resigned 
and forbearing, as was their Lord (2:21-23). Their 
trials should occasion joy rather than despair, for they 
share in Christ's sufferings (4: 13). 

But Jesus' sufferings do not furnish an example 
merely; they are purifying also. Christians are re- 
deemed from their former vain course of life by the 
sacrificial Lamb (i: 18, 19). They are made morally 
whole by the stripes inflicted on Christ, for he died a 
vicarious death, in order that men may die to sin and 
live unto righteousness (2:24). The ultimate end of 
the sufferings of the Just One is to bring into com- 
munion with God (3: 18). 

While Peter emphasizes the death of Jesus as a 
motive for moral amendment, he does not overlook its 
expiatory character. He thought of Christ as the sac- 
rificial lamb, whose death served as an atonement (1: 
19). His sufferings benefitted others, because he bore 
punishment for sins he did not commit. The benefit 
accruing to others is freedom from punishment (2: 21- 
24). Jesus' death was vicarious. He suffered on account 



1S9 

of sin (3 : 18). It could not have been his own sin, for he 
was just. The sins of the unjust must have been the 
reason. The unjust have some advantage in conse- 
quence (3: 18). How the advantage is secured by the 
unjust is not stated, but since the just and unjust are 
pointedly contrasted, it is probable that Peter had in 
mind the idea of substitution. This would have been in 
harmony with his Jewish education concerning the. sig- 
nificance of sacrifice. 

There can hardly be a doubt that the apostle 
thought of the Savior's death as delivering from guilt 
and punishment, but it must be admitted that he did not 
give this doctrine special prominence. He teaches the 
power of the cross to save from sin. rather than from 
the consequences of sin; but the one involves the other. 

Peter thinks of the resurrection as having a place 
in the salvation of men. In his own experience it had a 
morally renewing effect. It made it possible for him to 
have faith in God (1:21). It enthroned Jesus at the 
right hand of God, and thus certified his authority to 
procure salvation (3: 22). In consequence, Peter's dead 
hope had been revived (1:3), and with revived hope 
came moral energy to withstand life's trials. Hence- 
forth, the apostle lived under the power of a salvation 
and glory to be revealed (i : 4: 4: 13:5: i). So precious 
to Peter was experience of hope begotten by the resur- 
rection, that he regards hope man's best possession. It 
is their hope for which he commends the holy women of 
old (3 : 5), and it is hope which Christians must energet- 



190 

ically maintain (1:3) and for which they must make de- 
fense (3: 15). 

So high vakie does Peter place on the resurrection 
of Christ, that he regards baptism, the symbohc con- 
fession of the fact and significance of the resurrection, 
as having saving efficacy. That is, baptism saves, not 
because it cleanses the flesh, but because it expresses 
belief in the saving power of Jesus' resurrection, and 
thus frees from guilt and pledges to maintain a good 
conscience by doing what is right (3: 21). 

Christ's activity w^as not confined to his earthly 
ministry. In death his redemptive work could not be 
stopped. When his spirit had been released from the 
flesh, he heralded the message of salvation to his fellow 
spirits in the prison house of the dead, especially to the 
disobedient of the generation of Noah (3: 18: 20 cf. 4: 
6). This seems the most exegetically defensible inter- 
pretation of these much discussed passages, although it 
is not free from difflculties. No inferences must be de- 
rived from this interpretation, that are not warranted 
by the texts. The passage mentions only the spirits 
then in prison, and says nothing of a preaching to 
spirits subsequent to Jesus' resurrection. It gives no 
ground for the conjecture of future probation. The 
warning that Peter gave the readers of Paul's letters 
concerning interpretation of difficult passages may well 
be heeded by us in interpreting difficult texts in Peter's 
own letters (2 Pet. 3: 16). 

Christ's activitv continues in heaven, for he rules 



191 

over heavenly intelligences (3: 22), and like a Shepherd 
guides and defends his people on earth (2: 25). 

Thus. Peter cannot conceive of a time when Christ 
was not actively concerned in the salvation of men. In 
his pre-incarnate state he inspired Old Testament pro- 
phets (i : 11), in his earthly career he suffered and died 
for men, in the few days between his death and 
resurrection he preached glad tidings to the dead (3: 
18-20), in his enthronement he watches over be- 
lievers, and in the last day he will be God's mediator of 
judgment to the world (4:5, cf. i : 17), and will reward 
those that patiently endure trials (i: 7). 

5. The ChristiAxX Life. The christian life begins 
in the release of the conscience from the burden of guilt, 
is continued in purification of life, and is completed in 
sharing God's glory. Divine forgiveness as the initial 
act of salvation is presupposed in the letter, for the doc- 
trine is not plainly taught; and entrance upon the chris- 
tian life is not emphasized, but simply stated as a fact 
(1:3, 23). The new life begun in regeneration is weak, 
and requires nourishing and strengthening (2: 2). 

Salvation is the result of divine and human factors. 
God is the author of salvation, for he sovereignly elects, 
and his elective foreknowledge becomes historically 
manifest in calling men out of darkness into his mar- 
vellous light (1:2:2:9). The motive that prompts God 
to choose men is "his abundant mercy" (1:3), or grace, 
which is the source of christian life with its manifold 
privileges and powers (4: 10; 5: 5, 12). It is God's grace 
that grants entrance into the heavenly inheritance (i: 



192 

13: 3- 7)- The entire dependence of Christians upon 
God for the new Hfe is expressed by the figure of be- 
getting (i : 3). 

The instrument used in regeneration is the word 
of God, or the gospel (i : 12). The effective truth con- 
tained in the gospel is that of the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ (i : 3). Peter's conception of the adequacy of the 
gospel to produce eternal life is expressed in the words, 
"Being born again, not of perishable seed, but of im- 
perishable, through the word of God, which lives and 
abides .... But the word of the Lord abides forever" (i : 
23-25). If he thought the words of Christ, while in the 
flesh, powerful enoug'h to effect transformation of char- 
acter (Jno. 6:68), his own experience led him to em- 
phasize the effectiveness of the gospel of the resurrec- 
tion. It is by the preaching of this word, that those, who 
have not and cannot see Christ in the flesh, come to love 
him and rejoice in the salvation wrought by him (i : 25. 
cf. 1:8). 

The immediate cause of the unfolding of the divine 
life imparted in the new birth is the Holy Spirit (1:2; 
4: 14). The effectiveness of the regenerating word is 
due to the fact, that it has been made known to men by 
the Spirit (i : 12) ; the sanctification of life is effected by 
the Spirit; and the ultimate possession of glory is as- 
sured by the Spirit of glory, that constantly rests on 
Christians (4: 14). 

As the gospel is the instrumental cause of begin- 
ning the new life, so it is the instrument of its nourish- 
ment (2: 2). The life is purified of moral impurity by 



193 

believing and obeying the truth revealed in the gospel 
(i: 22). The saving power of Jesus' death and resur- 
rection are continually operative in the salvation of the 
soul (2:24; 4:1, 2; 1:3; 3:21). Entrance into the 
heavenly inheritance is assured, for God who begets 
constantly guards those begotten (i : 5). 

The human condition of salvation is faith in Jesus 
(i : 5-9; 2: 6-8), and through him faith in God (1:21). 
The subjective state of mind is attested by the objective 
act of baptism. So significant was baptism, that Peter 
deemed it essential to salvation (3:21). The act was 
confession of faith, but much more a symbolic repre- 
sentation of the resurrection of Christ, which is the ob- 
jective condition and guarantee of the new life in him. 
As faith is the condition of entrance, it is the indispensa- 
ble requisite for continuance in the state of salvation 
(1:7); for it is only by faith that God can guard Chris- 
tians until they realize salvation in the last time (i : 5). 

Christian faith expresses itself in trusting God (4: 
19; 5: 6), in obeying the gospel (i : 22), in longing for 
nourishment afforded by God's word (2: 2), in obeying 
Christ (i : 2). in following him as Shepherd (2: 25), in 
taking him as example in suffering and trial (2: 21; 3: 
18; 4: I, 13), and in confidently expecting his reappear- 
ance (1:7, 13; 4:5:5:4). 

Christian conduct is endeavor to put away all 
forms of wickedness (2: i), to abstain from fleshly lusts 
(2: II ; 4: 2-4), to submit patiently to suffering for the 
sake of the gospel (2: 19-21 ; 3: 13-16; 4: 12-19), to love 
fellowmen (3:8-11) and fellow christians (i: 22; 2: 17; 



194 

4:8, 9)- Love for one another will lead christians of- 
ficers to discharge their duties without restraint, desire 
for gain, or lordship (5: 1-4); will urge younger mem- 
bers to be subordinate to the older, and all to be humble 
before each other (5: 5). Christian life does not annul 
existing social relations. Hence, Christians must obey 
civil laws and honor rulers, and at the same time fear 
God (2: 13-17). Christian slaves must submit to their 
masters, even when they inflict punishment (2: 18-25), 
and christian wives must be subject to their husbands, 
and cultivate graces that are consequent on fear of God 
(3: 1-6); and husband must treat his wife as equally 
with himself an heir of the grace of life (3 : 7).. It was 
such teaching that kept Christians from becoming se- 
ditious and revolutionary, and at the same time im- 
planted moral forces that ultimately issued in the aboli- 
tion of slavery and the elevation of woman to her riglit- 
ful place in the home. 



THE TEACHING OF PETER. 



THE TEACHING OF PETER. 

(THE SECOND EPISTI^E.) 

Since many devout scholars deny that Peter wrote 
the second letter that goes by his name, it is not wise to 
use it as a source for that apostle's doctrine; but since 
tradition has almost uniformly declared the letter to be 
Peter's, it may be tentatively treated as genuine, so that 
its teaching may be permitted to contribute somewhat 
to determination of its authorship. 

Since the author has the practical aim of rebuking, 
warning and exhorting his readers, his references 
to christian doctrine are necessarily incidental. This 
letter, like the first, is colored by Old Testament ideas. 
For example, the idea of God's righteousness (i : i), of 
election (i: lo), of the high value of prophecy (i: 19- 
21; 3: 2), and the mention of Old Testament incidents 
(2: 5-16; 2: 22, cf. Prov. 26: II ; 3: 5, 8, cf. Ps. 90: 4; 3: 
13, cf. Isa. 65: 17) show that the writer did not contrast 
Christianity with Judaism, but that he believed the new 
revelation to be the crown and completion of the old. 

I. Man's Pre-christian Moral Condition. The 
author assumes that his readers had led lives of wicked- 
ness, from which they had been rescued by divine aid 
(1:9; 2:20), and that those nominal Christians, who 
were living wickedly, were still under the condemna- 

197 



198 

tion of God (2 : 20-22). He does not give the origin and 
nature of sin, but describes its manifestations. Viewed 
in its relation to a known standard of conduct, it is law- 
lessness (2:8; 3: 17); in its effect on the moral life, it is 
polluting (2 : 20, cf . 1:9); in relation to God, it is god- 
lessness. In fact, the writer thinks that the chief char- 
acteristic of sin is lack of reverence for God, for he em- 
phasizes the virtue of godliness (1:3, 6, 7; 2:9; 3: 11), 
and specifies ungodliness as the sin for which the an- 
cient world was destroyed by the flood (2: 5), for which 
Sodom and Gemorrah were overthrown (2: 6), and for 
which the present world will be consumed (3: 7). 

Acts of sin have their origin in desires of the flesh, 
which craves selfish and sensuous gratification (2: 10, 
18), and these desires are excited by the world, which is 
therefore conceived to be polluted and polluting (2: 20). 
The author does not attribute corruption to the physi- 
cal universal per sc, for he thinks that its pollution is due 
to the sinful desires of men (1:4). 

He observes the fact, that man and his surround- 
ings are so inter-related, that they cannot be separated 
in an estimate of moral forces. Hence, there must be 
destruction of man's present environment, together 
with the godless that yield to its allurements (3 : 7), in 
order to create a new environment fitted for the abode 
of righteous men (3: 13). 

Sin is not confined to the sphere of human society, 
for angels have sinned, and are now awaiting the day 
of judgment (2: 4). 

2. Salvation. Salvation is escape from the 



199 

world's corruption (1:4; 2:20). a life of godliness (i: 
3), and ultimate participation in the divine nature (i : 4), 
when entrance into the kingdom of the Lord and Sav- 
ior Jesus Christ shall have been secured (i : 11). 

Objectively considered, salvation is the result of 
God's call (i: 3, 10). The call is effective through the 
display of God's glory and moral energy (i: 3). The 
righteous character of God is the ground of the self- 
manifestation by which men are induced to put their 
trust in him (i : i). 

Jesus Christ also has share in procuring salvation. 
So true is this, that he is called Savior, as if there was no 
other worthy the name ( i : i, 11:3: 2, 18). The method 
of saving is suggested by the idea of purchase (2:1) and 
cleansing (1:9). If he purchased, he has absolute right 
to the service of those who are bought, and is therefore 
blaster. But the author of the letter assumes that Jesus 
is recognized as Lord, not only in the sense of ^Master, 
but in the same sense that God is Lord (i : 2, 8. 11, 14, 
16; 2: 20; 3: 2, 15. 18, cf. 2: 9, II ; 3:8, 9, 10). He is 
named 'the Lord' absolutely once, at least (3:2, cf. 2: 
20), and divine honor is ascribed to him in the doxology 
(3: 18). He is ruler in an everlasting kingdom ( i : 11 ). 
and will come again in glory and power (i: 16). The 
grace of Christ originates and continues the new life 

The subjective condition of salvation is faith, 
which is fitly called precious because of what it secures 
(i: I, 5). Faith is the source of the many virtues that 
characterize the Christian. From faith are successive! v 



200 

developed moral energy, intelligent knowledge, self- 
control, endurance, reverence for God, brotherly love 
and love for all men indiscriminately (i: 5-7). While 
in the first epistle faith partakes of the nature of hope, 
in this letter it partakes of the nature of knowledge. It 
is a true and accurate knowledge of God (1:3) and of 
Jesus Christ (i : 8, 2; 2: 20; 3: 18). It is moral and re- 
ligious insight into the nature and purpose and effects 
of the salvation wrought by God through Christ, in op- 
position to the moral blindness of those that forget the 
moral obligations imposed by the initial cleansing act 
of baptism (i : 9), and of those that justify their wicked- 
ness by appeal to the doctrines of grace and liberty (2: 
2, 18-22; 3: 17, 18). 

Since the author of this letter wished to develop a 
sturdy christian conscience, he lays great stress on 
man's share in securing salvation. Although Christians 
have escaped the corruption of the world (i : 4), there 
is danger of becoming again entangled therein (2: 20). 
The danger arises from false teachers, who justify their 
lawless profligacyby their boasted liberty (2: 19), and 
who scoff at the doctrine of the Lord's coming, and so 
go away into lustful living (3: 3, 4). Therefore there is 
need of earnest endeavor to make the divine election 
sure (i : 10). Christian conduct must be holy and rev- 
erent (3: 11), and thus qualify for citizenship in the 
kingdom of Jesus Christ (i : 11). There is no need to be 
discouraged, for those whose sensitive moral natures 
are distressed by wickedness are righteous, and by the 



201 

power of God will be kept from yielding to evil solici- 
tation (2: 7, 8). 

3. Doctrine of the Future. A marked pecu- 
liarity of this letter is its eschatology. The abode of the 
wicked dead until the judgment is Tartarus, a place of 
punitive confinement (2:4). There are the angels that 
sinned (2:4), the ungodly of the ancient world (2: 5), 
the wdcked inhabitants of Sodom and Gormorrah (2: 6), 
and all the unrighteous dead (2:9, 10). 

As certainly as the old order of things was de- 
stroyed by water, so certainly will the present world 
and its works be burned (3: 7-10). In the Old Testa- 
ment the conception of God coming in judgment is as- 
sociated with fire (Ps. 50: 3; 97: 3; Isa. 16: 15, 16, 24; 
Dan. 7: 9, 10. Cf. Sibyhine Oracles 3: 84-87), and the 
idea of the temporal nature of the existing order of 
things is taught (Ps. 102:26, 2.']\ Job. 14:12; Isa. 
34: 4; 66: 22). Our author, then, was not communicat- 
ing new doctrine to his readers, but using accepted be- 
liefs to enforce right conduct. The christian element in 
the letter is the association of 'the day of God' with the 
parousia of Jesus Christ (3 : 4). Antecedent to his com- 
ing, scoffers will arise denying its occurrence because 
of its delay and because of the stability of nature (3: 3, 
4). But in spite of postponement and of the seeming- 
permanency of the universe, Christ will certainly come, 
and come suddenly and unexpectedly (3: 10). The de- 
lay of the coming is due to the mercy of God, who 
thereby gives men opportunity to repent (3: 15). The 
Advent, then, can be hastened bv removing the oc- 



202 

casion of delay (3: 11, 12). Christ's appearance will in- 
augurate a new order of things (3: 13), for he will then 
establish his everlasting kingdom (i : 11). Into this 
kingdom will be admitted only those who have made 
their calling sure by spotless and blameless living (3: 
14), for the ungodly will have been destroyed with the 
old heavens and the old earth (3:7). 



THE TEACHINQ OF JUDE. 



THE TEACHING OF JUDE. 

Jude was most probably a brother of Jesus and of 
James, the bishop of the church at Jerusalem. His Jew- 
ish training is apparent from his familiarity with Old 
Testament history and Jewish legendary tales. 

The similarity of Jude 4-18 to 2 Peter 2 : 1-3 : 3 is so 
marked as to raise an interesting literary problem. 
Does Jude quote from Peter, or Peter from Jude, or 
both from a common source? The likeness consists in 
the facts, that Jude mentions particulars not mentioned 
by Peter, for example, the cause of the fall of the angels 
(6: 7), the cause of the overthrow of Sodom and Go- 
morrah (7), destruction of the Israelites for their unbe- 
lief (5), na}]ie and dignify of the angel that contended 
with Satan (9), the object for which they contended (9). 
the instances of Cain and Korah (11), and the prophecy 
of Enoch (14, 15); and that Peter mentions incidents 
omitted by Jude, for example, the Noachian deluge (2 
Peter 2:5), the vexation of righteous Lot (2:7, 8), 
Balaam rebuked by the ass (2: 16). The likeness and 
unlikeness are best explained by supposing that the au- 
thor of Second Peter was thoroughly familiar with 
Jude's letter, and reproduced it in a free paraphrase. 

Another interesting fact about Jude is the freedom 
with which he used Jewish legends and uncanonical 

205 



206 

literature to illustrate his teaching. The story of 
Michael's contention with the Devil must have been 
well known, else the apostle's reference to it would 
have been pointless; but, to say the least, there is no 
biblical warrant for supposing that any such struggle 
ever took place. It was probably a current legend, 
which Jude could fitly use. Again, Jude quotes di- 
rectly from the Book of Enoch (1:9), and got his no- 
tion of the sin of the angels, either from that book or 
from legends that have been incorporated in it (64: 2; 
9:8; 15:3; 12:4; 19: i; 69: 4; 86: 3, 4; 106: 14). That 
many absurd and childish stories were current and be- 
lieved, to the detriment of pure christian doctrine, is at- 
tested by Paul, who warns Timothy against "old wives' 
fables" (i Tim. 4:7). Jude, however, had the right to 
use such literature as he pleased, in order to enforce the 
truth, as Paul felt at liberty to quote the heathen poets, 
Aratus, Epimenides and Menander, and to adopt the 
legendary names, Jannes and Jambres, of the magicians 
that withstood Moses. 

It is impossible to identify the godless ones that 
Jude mentions with any one of the early gnostic sects, 
for his description suits the licentious practices and 
lawless boastings of many of them. Most probably the 
apostle was rebuking men that consciously perverted 
Paul's doctrine of grace, knowledge and liberty, but 
who had not yet constructed a system of thought in op- 
position to the generally received christian doctrines. 
Jude's aim is to warn against filthy living, and is there- 
fore intensely practical. In consequence, his christian 



207 

doctrine must be gotten from suggestions, rather than 
from express statements. 

Since it was the perversion of God's grace in order 
to hve wantonly, that occasioned the wTiter's vehement 
denunciation, he evidently regarded a renewed life as an 
essential element in salvation. The origin of this life 
in regeneration is not mentioned, nor is there an atone- 
ment alluded to, yet God and Christ and the Spirit have 
part in moral renewal. There is only one God that 
saves (25), who is Father because of his gracious love. 
He has mercy on the undeserving, makes them aware 
of his love, and so awakens in them peace of conscience 
(i). The sovereign love of the Father occasions the 
historical fact of the call, and makes it effective (i), and 
the same power and love keep Christians secure until 
the day of Christ's revelation (i). 

Christ is the agent of salvation (24), who thus be- 
comes Lord (4, 21). He alone is Master of the chris- 
tian conscience (4), and mercifully grants eternal life 
(21). Note that Jude thinks of his brother, whom he 
knew in the flesh, as having divine authority over hu- 
man conduct and as the One who will judge in 'the 
great day' (6, 21). 

The christian life is distinguished from the natural 
pre-christian life by the possession of the Spirit (19), 
who maintains the Christian's confidence in God and 
purity of life resulting therefrom by inclining him to 
prayer (20). 

The human condition of salvation is faith (3), 
which is acceptance of Jesus as the guarantee of salva- 



208 

tion (4, 5). A life of faith is shown by prayer (20) and 
by endeavor to keep self an object of God's forgiving 
love(2i). Those that strive to avoid wickedness are 
guarded by the power of God (24), until the manifesta- 
tion of Christ's glory, when they will be accepted as 
blameless (24), and will then receive eternal life (21). 



JUL 231900 



^ ^. / 



mmm^Afii}fsi^»ii 




■:^mm^^^M 



